{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nCan environmental changes be reconciled with national security interests?\n(A) Environmental challenges to economic growth, such as natural resource management and employment, leads to diversification and research which may in the long-term result in technological advancements that bolster military programs. (B) Environmental changes can undermine national security in many ways; including weakening the economic base that determines military capacity. So if the natural capital base of an economy erodes than so does the long-term capacity of its armed forces. Any developments however, will be 'human' in impact. (C) The environmental problems encountered by countries are principally internal. External threats remain within a country's control: external military threats will remain unchanged and a primary concern. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements could be described as a liberal perspective on future energy security?\n(A) The global economy is interconnected, ensuring that energy security for one is dependent upon energy security for all. Thus all core powers have the same interests in maintaining and extending the conditions under which this market operates. As long as this economic order exists, conflict between major powers over energy reserves is highly unlikely. (B) Energy scarcity is likely to lead to future disruptions in the global system and the emergence of a 'new international energy order', characterized less by liberal free-market trading than by statism and neo-mercantilism. (C) Oil remains the lifeblood of the current order - an order that is based upon an unequal (and deeply unjust) distribution of wealth and power in favour of capitalist economic elites. Those who benefit most from the prevailing order will ensure that the flow of energy under favourable conditions continues to underpin their position in the global system. (D) Energy scarcity will signal a return to an era of greater geopolitical confrontation. 'Resource wars', in particular over energy sources, present a clear possibility for a breakdown in international cooperation, as states begin to compete (and eventually conflict) over the control of major reserves. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is a common criticism of the human security concept?\n(A) Human security is neo-colonial. (B) Human security promotes global capitalism. (C) Human security is too broad. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways have governments responded to the threat of TNC post-Cold War?\n(A) State responses to transnational crime have evolved in correlation to the increased threat posed to the integrity of the state. Organized crime has been regarded primarily as a national security threat to be addressed domestically. The institutionalized international approaches for information sharing have been predominately bilateral to the extent of bringing to justice perpetrators of crime that are seeking to evade justice. (B) With the expansion of TNC in the 1990s, states became increasingly willing to take measures to reduce the asymmetries between countries through harmonization of legislation and increasing police capacity and networking. The government response to transnational crime has focused on targeting the individuals and organizations perpetrating the crime, rather than the criminal markets themselves. (C) The US war on drugs has heavily influenced the construction of the governmental response to the growing perception that the phenomenon of TNC represents a national security threat. The approach has an emphasis on bilateral and multilateral cooperation on law enforcement combined with sticks on a bi-lateral basis to induce states to increase regulation and enforcement against TNC. (D) The emergence of norms governing the response to address the spectre of organized crime and to harmonize legislation occurred with the evolving Global War on Terror in which the terrorism-organized crime nexus resulted in the militarization of law enforcement: the use of military technology and intelligence as opposed to addressing the underlying conditions that facilitate illicit trade through an international institutionalist response. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat potential problem for policy in the institutionalization of academe-policy interaction emerged?\n(A) The main disciplinary context for security studies theorizing was a move away from the disciplinary domination of political science toward multi-academe interaction from sociology, mathematics, psychology, natural and political sciences, and economics. (B) Policy-academe developments have resulted in the modification of the role of think tanks away from policy towards politicization resistant theory. (C) Security studies has been marked by the gradual \"IR-ification\" of the discipline. Security studies became one of International Relations' (IR's) two pillars, the second being International Political Economy. Henceforth IR became the main disciplinary context in which security studies was deliberated. (D) Think tanks and policymakers are increasingly interrelated. The institutional blurring between universities, think tank, and policy has resulted in policy mergers at every level. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not one of the 10 steps of the Washington Consensus?\n(A) Fiscal Discipline: budget deficits of no more than 2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). (B) Tax Reform: broadening the tax base, cut marginal tax rates, improve tax administration. (C) Property Rights: legal reforms to secure property rights without excessive costs and to regularize the informal sector. (D) Nationalization: state enterprises should be protected. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following concepts does NOT form part of the technical discourse on cyber-security?\n(A) Business networks (B) Computer experts (C) Anti-virus industry (D) Computer networks \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the characteristics and manifestations of the strategy adopted by the USA in pursuit of energy security?\n(A) The deployment of troops in the Persian Gulf is part of the USA's attempt to secure its dominance in the oil-rich region. (B) All of these options. (C) The USA has sought to assert its primacy vis-\u00e0-vis friendly and rival powers, through the deployment of troops and other interventions. (D) The USA has actively sought to stabilize oil-rich friendly political actors and secure the economic and political status quo. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways do theories of conventional and critical social constructivism differ?\n(A) Conventional constructivists view constructivism as a bridge between rationalist and reflectivist approaches, enabling both to benefit from the insights of the other. Conversely, critical constructivists argue that this approach simply reproduces the binary distinctions that characterize positivist methodology. (B) Critical constructivism regards the strength of social constructivism to be its ability to bridge rationalist and reflectivity approaches. Conversely, social constructivists regard this as an unhelpful regression to positivist binary frameworks of analysis. (C) Conventional constructivism refers to the earlier works of social constructivist theorists that are characterised by a rejection of positivist methodology. Critical constructivists challenge these theories, embracing positivist methodologies in their work. (D) Social constructivism is best understood as a uniform approach to the construction of social identities and security; although distinctions exist within the field, these are not easily defined as distinctive separate approaches. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nConsidering commerce and marketing, which of the following present the most significant obstacle to developing IT security?\n(A) There is no direct return on investment in building security systems. (B) Security systems are detrimental to usability and can make IT systems less functional, and therefore less attractive to the consumer. (C) There is pressure to reduce the time it takes to get a new IT product or system onto the market, so security systems are sacrificed in order to reduce the time-to-market. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following best describes the 'Orient' according to Edward Said?\n(A) The Orient is a constructed subject that is imagined as inferior, irrational, and backward, in comparison to the West. (B) The Orient is a geographical term once used to describe the east Asia. (C) The Orient is an imagined concept that must be rejected by scholars in order to analyse security. (D) Where there is an imbalance of power, the Orient is the dominant intellectual force or otherwise superior party. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow can we best describe liberalism?\n(A) Liberalism is a fundamentally pessimistic approach that regards the international system as destined to the escalation of conflict. It is the dominant conception in the practice of international politics. (B) Liberalism is a novel conception in the theory of international politics. It is an optimistic approach that defines the ways in which states should relate to one another, particularly during conflict situations. (C) Liberalism is an optimistic approach, offering an orientation for the better conduct of international affairs in the belief that a more peaceful world is possible. It is the dominant conception in the practice of international politics. (D) Liberalism does not exist as a mainstream theory within International Relations, but rather offers a set of guidelines and advice for states and political actors wishing to accrue power within the international system independently from the restrictions of traditional security paradigms. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not one of the unifying principles of Critical Security Studies, as defined by Krause?\n(A) Principle actors are social constructs that are made through political practices. (B) Natural-science methodology is the best way to study social science, interpretive methodologies lack the coherence required for in-depth analysis. (C) Knowledge of the social world is not objective, as there is no divide between the social world and knowledge of that world. (D) The purpose of theory is not explanation in terms of generalizable causal claims, but contextual understanding and practical knowledge. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nConsidering 'offensive' and 'defensive realism', which of these statements is not correct?\n(A) Offensive realism defines the international system as an environment in which states seek to achieve security through the acquisition of power. (B) Defensive realism regards cooperation as the way in which states can achieve security. (C) Both defensive realism and offensive realism regard power and competition as a means by which security can be achieved for the state. (D) Offensive realism theorizes that states will pursue hegemony where possible. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nFollowing the terrorist attacks of 9/11, what is the predominant paradigm in security and threat perception and to what extent is it an adequate response?\n(A) The security paradigm has been the development of multi-level analysis, to aid the understanding of disempowerment and to promote peace research involvement by NGOs, policy-makers, and the academic community. (B) The security paradigm of US led strategy has been the undertaking of short-term measures, many of which are drawn from research of the peace studies community. They focus on peace-keeping, peace-making, and structural change for preventing further conflict. (C) The security paradigm of recent years has been to some extent a reversion to 'liddism'; keeping the lid on a potentially fractured international system, without redress to the critical underlying causes of the problems. (D) The dominant approach to security studies has been a US led initiative which recognizes the need to undertake responsibility for inter-governmental cooperation, particularly for the commitment towards ethical intervention and for securing peaceful transformations alongside demilitarization of the international community. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways has the concept of environmental security been contested?\n(A) Analysis of environmental security is understood as the integrity of the whole ecological system whose primary threat is human activity. However, it radically challenges security thinking in that it demands a shift in the reason for action from national security interest to the welfare of the entire social-ecological system of the planet. (B) Environmental security contends that the principle threat to the ecological integrity is human activity and therefore humans can be secured to the extent that welfare is protected at the domestic level. The reason for action is to be found in individual and national interests. (C) The crossover of common insecurity issue areas is unlikely because not all problems are truly global. Not all states are equally responsible for environmental problems, nor is there such a thing as equality of risk. Systemic interdependence is unlikely to manage those security areas. (D) The ecological security and human security approaches to environmental security do not challenge the security community to consider alternative objects of security. Ecological security displays continuity with major interpretations of security, which typically centralize the security of the state. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow can the origins of weak state insecurity be explained?\n(A) Weak state insecurity in a historical framework of analysis represents an abnormal state in the long term state-building process. Bloody and violent conflict between social forces is not consistent with the presence of the centralizing force with the capacity to attain monopoly of control over violence. (B) The utility of explaining weak state insecurity with a comparison to the historical conditions of state consolidation in Europe does not stand in the contemporary context of global society because of the pervasion of international norms to prevent violent conflict from manifesting in the consolidation process. (C) The contemporary state-building condition is constrained by the shortened time-frame operating within the established guidelines of international norms, a particular problematic rule of which is sovereignty. Thus, unlike some European entities which could not complete the state-building process and were absorbed into more viable units, weak states will remain quasi entities. (D) Weak state insecurity originated from the denial of sovereignty as the norm and the corresponding extension of the right to inviolability of statehood. Without protection under international laws the possibility of its national status being revoked and its territory being subsumed into another state threatens the consolidation of the state-building process. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following best describes the 'subaltern' in postcolonialism?\n(A) Subaltern refers to those who are located geographically within the southern hemisphere. (B) The subaltern is a term applied to a specific group of scholars from the global south. (C) The subaltern refers to populations that are marginalised or outside of the hegemonic power structure. (D) The subaltern refers to the subcontinent of India. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow do biological differences affect the roles that men and women must perform for the state?\n(A) Biology determines the female body as weak, ensuring that men continue to dominate state security apparatus in order to protect them. Women are aware of practical biological differences, and by accepting them they allow men to act as their protectors and care-givers. In return, women must act as protectors and care-givers to those less capable than themselves, their children, infants, the elderly, and the infirm. (B) The most intimate of human activities for women are more important than the demands of the political and religious male dominated elite. Biology determines, and woman's intimate choice exerts, that the considerable responsibility of reproducing a state's population becomes the duty of women alone. (C) Indiscriminate warfare is gender neutral and in contemporary conflicts there is no gender difference in levels of risk or duty. Men are just as likely to become victims of mass rape (as in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Balkans conflict) as women, and women are equally likely to be conscripted or coerced into military service. (D) Gender roles are a social construct; the values that we attribute to masculinity or femininity, such as strength or care-giving, are the product of shared social ideals rather than innate biological properties. Men and women are equally able to care effectively for children or to conduct violent and aggressive behaviour. However, social constructs of gender roles are pervasive, and women are likely to be victims of gender-based violence in conflict whilst men are more likely to be involved as perpetrators of violence. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nAccording to motivational realism, what might inspire the behaviour of so called 'greedy states'?\n(A) Human nature is fundamentally greedy. (B) All of these options. (C) State desire to increase wealth and prosperity. (D) State desire to spread its ideology. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn which year was the seminal Human Development Report published?\n(A) 1987 (B) 1997 (C) 1994 (D) 2004 \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat does it mean to be secure?\n(A) Security means the coercive capability to stop an aggressor. Security is freedom from war, and the ability to deter or defeat aggressive attacks. (B) Security refers to safety from vulnerabilities (both external and internal) that could harm the state, societies within the state, and the values of those societies. (C) Security means freedom to enjoy the things that are most important to human survival and well-being, such as food, healthcare, and the opportunity to live well. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat has been the effect of biological weapons on national security in the international community?\n(A) The West, notably Canada, Britain, and the US, have conducted research into the weaponization of Anthrax, Tularemia, Q-fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, and anti-agricultural agents. However biological weapons were generally viewed in the West as lacking military utility. Instead strategists have concentrated on nuclear and conventional capabilities. (B) The Soviet Union carried out the most extensive research program into genetic engineering to weaponize naturally occurring diseases. However, the Soviets most likely saw their biological weapons program as a counter to the global-strike complex that was emerging in NATO in the 1970s or as a way to inhibit recovery in a nuclear exchange. Biological weapons programs should therefore be regarded in a Cold War context. (C) Biological weapons make use of living organisms or toxins to weaken or kill, but because these organisms and toxins occur in nature it makes it difficult to differentiate between naturally occurring disease and subversive activities which, moreover, make a state's capacity hard to verify. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow are US 'military moms' important to a critical reading of security?\n(A) Mothers are not passive objects but the specific target of military recruiters who rely on their active engagement to fuel recruitment. (B) Examining the role of 'military moms' reveals the extent of gendered strategizing that is required to raise and sustain a military force. (C) All of these. (D) Mothers are indispensable to the exercise of military power but often overlooked in traditional security analyses. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWeak states face a number of security threats, which of the following threats is the odd one out?\n(A) Warlordism and the assertion of the interests and influences of criminal gangs. (B) A sudden influx of refugees fleeing conflict from neighbouring states. (C) Coup d'\u00e9tat, military rebellion or mutiny; the violent intervention in politics by the state's own military forces, overthrowing and replacing the ruling elite. (D) Competition for authoritative power or coercion from strongmen. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways may TNC be regarded as a new concept?\n(A) Organized transnational crime groups are those structured groups randomly formed or otherwise but do not have a formally defined role for its members or continuity of membership but have a developed purpose for the intent of committing crimes. (B) Transnational organized criminal activities consist of profit driven crime for a high level return that may result in the subversion or infiltration of the legal economy through the reinvestment of illicit profits. (C) Transnational criminal organizations are those organizations whose modes of operation result in breaking domestic laws, e.g. murder, theft or money-laundering, underlined by the employment of systematic violence. (D) The terms 'transnational crime' and 'organized crime' are sometimes used interchangeably but not all transnational crime will be committed by an organized group nor will all organized groups engage in transnational crime. The pursuit of profit for illicit activity eludes definition and may include those individuals or businesses that engage in occasional transnational criminal activity but are otherwise legitimate operatives. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements does not characterise our understanding of disease pandemics within the contemporary international political system?\n(A) Infectious disease transcends international borders and, to some extent, divisions of class, gender, education and wealth. (B) Whilst pandemics present a direct risk to national security, they also have the potential to undermine wider international stability. (C) Like terrorism, pandemics present a set of threats and risks that are diverse yet interconnected. (D) The existing mechanisms for monitoring and treating infectious disease within the international system are capable of effectively containing pandemic outbreaks. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways does gender shape the conceptualization of nationhood and conflict?\n(A) Although often missing from the traditional literature on war and security, women frequently serve the purposes of nationalise causes, with nationalism often presented in highly gendered and female terms, where women are symbols of statehood. (B) A sense of national identity can be developed through a variety of shared experiences, including war. The glorification of iconic national figures such as political leaders is not noticeably gendered and men and women generally perform the same types of roles within the public realm. (C) Measures of national pride and success are biased towards the glorification of female attributes such as the ability to bear children. The restriction of women to the domestic sphere creates a sense of national identity that is founded on a celebration of home life, feminine strength, and maternal characteristics. (D) When thinking about national identity, violence, physical strength, aggression, and the ability to use force are attributed as feminine characteristics. The male identity is imagined as being one of domesticity, nurturing, care, and child rearing. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat might the pragmatic implications of biology be on post-conflict gender security?\n(A) Recent inquiry into the way in which women have been treated both in and after war has revealed a degree of ambiguity in the relationship between armed forces and civilian women. While women have often been the targets of violence by the enemy in conflict, it is also the case that they may suffer at the hands of their \"protectors\". This strengthens the argument for female soldiers to be engaged in certain types of peacekeeping work, particularly in post-conflict situations. (B) Perpetuation of violence against women in post-conflict society has devalued the claim that violence is more prevalent in militarized societies. Women were as protected by men in pre-war society as they were in post-war society. (C) Case studies revealed that in certain military families, levels of violence were dependent on the degree of psychological damage inflicted during fighting, however this was variable and dependent on the individual not on gender basis. (D) Recent inquiry into the way in which women have been treated both in and after war has revealed a degree of ambiguity in the relationship between armed forces and civilian women. While women have often been the targets of violence by the enemy in conflict, it is also the case that they may suffer at the hands of their \"protectors\" which may actually undermine liberal feminists' case of the \"right to fight\". \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow have the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, as international financial institutions (IFIs), affected the development of poorer countries?\n(A) Financial policies advocated by the World Bank and IMF were readily adopted by developing countries that sought to bring their economic development into line with wealthier nations. The IFIs focus has been on achieving human security and the promotion of development at a societal level. (B) Through the implementation of specific financial policies adopted at the bequest of global financial institutions, many developing countries have gained economic prosperity and the correlating levels of human security. (C) The World Bank and IMF tend to operate in an economic arena that includes only major financial institutions and wealthy states; coupled with a respect for sovereignty, the scope of such institutions does not reach to interference in national politics. (D) IFIs identified the economic failings of developing countries as being the result of political problems. Thus, IFIs adopted an approach that involved political and economic restructuring of these states, coercing governments into the adoption of specific financial policies designed to promote debt repayment and economic development. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhen may an issue fail to become securitized?\n(A) When the general public is not convinced of the legitimacy of the proposed threat. (B) When, following the discursive element of the process, extraordinary measures are not implemented. (C) When the securitizing actor is not granted the special right to implement extraordinary measure. (D) When the audience are convinced via the speech act or the securitizing actor but fail to grant that actor the special rights requested in order to address the proposed threat. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the practical problems associated with applying coercive diplomacy in the West?\n(A) Different natures of the adversaries complicate the use of Western coercion. Their tendency to rely on irregular or asymmetric military strategies makes it hard to threaten or even defeat their opponent's military strategy. Those actors deny forces the ability to win quickly with little cost. (B) Increased verification capabilities brought in with the technological and communication revolution have resulted in a practical difficulty for practitioners, enabling the verification of tactical/temporary and strategic/lasting - only the latter of which constituting a compliance success. The capacity to verify processes have highlighted instances of non-compliance following inconclusive coercive diplomacy exchanges. (C) Coalitional coercive diplomacy is the only credible means for Western democracies to gain the sincerity required to make a threat of force real in the mind of the adversary. However, past efforts of coalitional building have proved to be extremely limited. Disagreements over the means and coordination of the policy often result in splits and consequently states are reluctant to employ it. Where it has been employed it collapses under the weight of its own inadequacy. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nSome governmental regimes are reluctant to fully join the liberalist camp; which of the following is not a valid reason for this reluctance?\n(A) The dominance of Western ideologies can be regarded as contemporary imperialism. (B) Liberalism advocates the enforcement of certain values that are not shared by all political regimes. (C) The fear that cooperation may be recurring. (D) Adherence to liberalism does not guarantee the favoured treatment of state regimes over its citizens; other states may threaten regime security in their efforts to secure societal security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the themes that make post-structuralism a different field of study and why is it criticized?\n(A) One of the founding assumptions of Critical Security Studies is that theories about the world constitute that world and thus that theory, including security theory, has political effects. The consequence is that theory is the product of the system, and that analyses of the agent of security and the referent object is produced by its own practices. (B) Central to the political and critical nature of post-structural literature is the idea of fostering an ethos of democracy and an ethos of critique which is finite and attainable. It is to this end that we must strive, but one that can only be met under the conditions prescribed, that of true democracy. (C) A central notion of critique is to provide an answer to the problem of what it means to be critical. This invariably raises the question of revealing the interest behind knowledge claims with the goal of social change, what is accepted as the end of theory: that the practical and contextual understandings inform to whom knowledge claims serve. (D) Poststructuralism accepts the form and foundations for knowledge claims that dominate the security studies debate. This has brought it into confrontation with the critical studies community, having little to contribute to the understanding of the ways in which knowledge is constructed. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow is capitalism defined or regarded within the HM paradigm?\n(A) HM regards capitalism as producing extreme insecurity in its disempowerment of the worker or labourer, from whom the ability to control labour or output is removed by the capitalist. (B) HM regards the assertion by liberalists and realists that the capitalist economic sphere is non-political to be a misrepresentation, serving the interests of the unelected capitalist elite. (C) HM regards the capitalist's accumulation of surplus value as a by-product of labour to be exploitation of those labourers by which the value was originally produced. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best describes Booth's attitude toward constructivism and post-structuralism within Critical Security Studies?\n(A) Post-structuralism provides no basis for political action, being a dangerous mix of faux radicalism, relativism and obscurantism, whilst constructivism is an orientation to world politics rather than a specific political theory. (B) Constructivism offers a number of specific political theories applicable to Critical Security Studies but all of these lack the tenability required in security studies. Post-structuralist theories similarly lack the durability desired by CSS scholars. (C) Post-structuralism and constructivism are ill-defined theories that are better described as political orientations, applicable in vague terms but lacking the substance required by scholars in contemporary security studies. (D) Constructivism is too dangerous a mix of political ideologies, combining elements of radicalism and relativism. Post-structuralism is more of an orientation to world politics rather than a specific and applicable political theory. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is Critical Security Studies?\n(A) An approach to security that applies critical knowledge to established orthodoxies of security studies. (B) A specific theory of security that identifies clearly defined agents, threats, and processes. (C) A secondary term for the Copenhagen School of Security. (D) A study security in which the critical importance of the state, military and traditional security are maintained. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow is a process of securitization completed?\n(A) A process of securitization is when an issue not included in the political sphere becomes politicized and is managed within the political system. A securitized issue is part of public policy requiring governmental action; decision-making, resource allocation and even communal governance. (B) A securitizing actor can argue for an issue to be securitised when it is outside of the political domain. An existential threat can be made a matter for state attention even when it is not included within public debate. Securitization refers to the recognition of the threat prior to its emergence in the political process. (C) Securitization refers to the move of issues from a politicized state to a heightened state of politics beyond the normal political domain of decision-making activities. Once placed above the political sphere it cannot be returned to the public sphere, having been translated into a state interest above normal proceedings. (D) An issue can be securitized, that is framed as a security question, when it is moved from the politicized to the securitized sphere. During the securitization process, the securitizing actor(s) use discourse to persuade an audience that the issue at hand is one of urgency and priority, and that it presents an existential threat to some referent object. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not a purportedly beneficial outcome of the globalization process?\n(A) The redistribution of wealth, addressing disparities in economic and resource allocation across the globe through a sense of greater 'interconnectedness'. (B) The growing sense of global community, resulting in super-national identities that result from populations feeling closer to one another. (C) The sharing of ideas, technologies and resources that can directly benefit human security, such as medical advancements. (D) A global market that has demonstrated the ability, if left unchecked, to reduce poverty and make substantial economic gains. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow can extraordinary measures be defined as 'special' or 'extra' ordinary?\n(A) Where the state employs the use of force or violence this can be regarded as an extraordinary measure. (B) Those measures taken as a response to a securitized existential threat can be defined as extraordinary. (C) Those measures that exist outside the usual paradigm of the political realm. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat role does language play in the process of securitization?\n(A) By articulating an issue using the language of security that issue makes the transition from the discursive political realm to the security realm. (B) The speech act is the end point of the two-stage process of securitization, at this point the legitimacy of the existential threat is established and the right to employ special measures in addressing the threat is granted to the securitizing actor. (C) The presentation of an issue as threatening the survival of a referent object is referred to as a speech act. The process of securitization consists of this articulation of the speech act, and accordingly is referred to as a discursive model. (D) The articulation of an issue as a security threat is referred to as a speech act. This speech act is presented to an audience by a securitizing actor. This actor attempts to convince that audience of the credibility of the issue as an existential threat to a specific referent object. If successful, the audience is convinced and the securitizing actor is granted recourse to legitimately use extraordinary measures in response to the threat. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these is not a widely articulated or valid criticism of constructivism?\n(A) Constructivism lacks the ability to empirically prove its theories. (B) The rationalist foundations of constructivism create difficulties in applying its theories within a changing international system. (C) By regarding the state as the most important actor, constructivism neglects internationalization in a globalized world. (D) Despite rejecting causality, constructivists simply replace the material trigger of causality with ideas. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways is it possible to gain a definition of terrorism?\n(A) A terrorist attack is that which uses the threat or use of organized violence to achieve political objectives. This may include kidnappings and organized violence for financial gain, and such attacks can be undertaken by groups or individuals. (B) Organization is essential for a successful campaign to bring about the political goals that are being sought. An act of terrorism targets an audience that extends beyond the immediate victims and is characterized as being a weapon of the weak. (C) Terrorist violence is a form of psychological warfare that generates fear in a target audience by attacking members of that group. Selected targets are chosen at random from a cross-section of groups within the state ranging from political representatives, security forces, civilians or law enforcement. Random acts of violence contribute to the sense of insecurity and societal instability. (D) Terrorism is a broad concept that is understood to denote the threat or use of organized violence for the attainment of political objectives. The definition may therefore be inclusive of governments as targets or perpetrators and cases of war (hot and cold) where terror and counter-terror measures are tactics of either side. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow does the social constructivist approach account for the process of militarization?\n(A) By regarding security as a socially constructed concept, constructivists assert that militarization is the result of governmental decisions based on shared values and cultural norms that underpin their conception of what constitutes a security risk. Accordingly, different governments will identify different threats and react in different ways. (B) Social constructivists tend to focus on the population rather than military as an area for study, thus regarding the process of militarization largely in terms of its impact on human security. (C) Social constructivists assert that the process follows a popular recognition of empirically definable threats; when it is recognized that an issue poses a real and valid threat, it warrants militarization. (D) In their uniform advocacy of human security and adoption of a human-centric approach to security studies, social constructivists regard militarization as a process that is detrimental to achieving wider security goals and actively encourage the demilitarization of the security system. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements best describes the HM approach to sectoral security analysis?\n(A) HM agrees with the idea that security can be viewed using a sectoral framework, and recognises the depth of analysis that is enabled by such an approach. (B) HM rejects Buzan et al.'s theory of sectoral security analysis, on the grounds that securitization is a product of a state-centric approach. (C) HM rejects the assertion by Buzan et al. that there are distinct and separate sectors of security, instead adopting a holistic view of security within which national and transnational class is an important factor. (D) HM favours the sectoral approach to security analysis, in particular prioritising the state as a referent object and drawing much of its theoretical foundations from the realist principles that underpin the sectoral approach. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat was the importance of peace research during the 1980s?\n(A) Peace research was inter-disciplinary and politically orientated with immediate policy responsibility accountable to the major powers of the political system. (B) Peace research, in contrast to university IR, was under a great deal of pressure to deal with relevant issues with a high expectation of immediate delivery of policy answers. (C) There was a distance from policy responsibility but European security studies gained political relevance due to the politicization of security issues during the period defined by the peace movement. (D) The setting was simultaneously informed by political theory as the dominant discipline and isolated from developments in theory in the different disciplines. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements does not describe the liberalist conception of the international system?\n(A) International politics is not the same everywhere; it is only 'realist' in certain places at certain times. (B) The nation state does not exist as a unitary actor within the international system. (C) Nation states are not basically alike. (D) States are and should remain the sole actors to be considered in the study of International Relations. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following might be considered part of the 'deepening and broadening' of security?\n(A) The nexus between identity and security. (B) War, the military, and the sovereign state. (C) Environmental changes. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways did game theory and deterrence theory mark an intellectual development in the 'golden age' of security studies?\n(A) Deterrence theory and game theory became highly influential within the academic world and gained centrality politically because the nature of the object allowed for a high degree of normative theorization which was accompanied by a mood of technological pessimism that fostered an ethos of critique. (B) The progressive research programs produced theories that actually formed their own reality of abstractions, the world of, 'secure second strike capability', 'extended deterrence' and 'escalation dominance'. (C) Game theory and deterrence theory as an intellectual development resulted in the trade-off between policy relevance/utility and theoretical abstraction/sophistication. (D) None of the above. The influence of deterrence theory was illusory. The build-up of nuclear weapons and first strike orientated policy was driven by the internal logic of maximizing firepower. Theory served as the smokescreen that belied the intent. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways will the changing global security environment shape the nature of developing conflicts in the twenty-first century?\n(A) Human migration will arise as a result of global inequalities in the distribution of power, wealth, and resources. Disempowerment of populations will lead to competition and violence, manifested in transnational movements; and environmental threats and resources scarcity will lead to conflict. (B) Economic interdependency between states will strengthen global security and lead to a reduction in international conflict. Human migration will lead to overcrowding and resource scarcity but this will be addressed by the technological advancements of developing states to which most migration will take place. (C) The primary cause of conflict, both at international and sub-national level will be based in ideological differences between populations as resources scarcity, population growth and human migration forces diverse identity groups into increasingly close contact. (D) Environmental concerns will be overshadowed by immediate threats to international security, posed by global economic crisis and the subsequent rise of fundamentalist ideologies and violence. Human migration will be managed within the current global economic system as poverty restricts movement although there is a limited risk of transnational revolt as a result of disempowerment and resource scarcity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIs the weak state security dilemma an inescapable condition?\n(A) The Global War on Terror has had a positive effect on the state-building project. The fight against terrorism has redirected international attention and resources towards eradicating insecurities as part of the recognition of the multilevel factors facilitating the emergence of terrorism. Specifically this involves the controlling of the proliferation of arms. (B) The problems of weak state insecurity have taken a low priority on the international agenda and solutions have not moved beyond the context of liberal multi-party democracy and free market capitalism. The problem thus far is that no one case of enforced neo-liberalism, either through conditionalities, regime change, peace-building, has succeeded in transforming a weak state into a strong state. (C) The failure of liberal reform has highlighted the increasing viability of the option of alternative forms of political organization beyond the state. Sub-state organizations are a practical solution to dealing with regions with endemic problems of weapons and poverty, whilst regional organization is a sustainable structural form in Africa and Latin America. (D) Weak states have embarked on a protracted and difficult process to attain effective status. Long term security strategies have resulted in the adoption of measures to counteract the worst of the effects including the establishment of multi parties, economic liberalization and membership of the international community. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might the recent global economic crisis be viewed as a challenge to the liberalist perspective?\n(A) Governmental cyberspace restrictions, in the form of censorship and monitoring, are increasing. (B) The crisis has revealed the failure of international cooperation to prevent a global catastrophe, in the form of massive economic collapse and contagion. (C) All of these options. (D) Increasing state involvement in key industrial and financial sectors, including nationalisation and state-funded development. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat factors facilitated the institutional innovation of security studies?\n(A) The need for civilian expertise, a need driven by technological developments, resulted in a shift from targeted development of fast-changing technologies to deployment of a given technology. (B) Theory was necessary because nuclear technology was inherently more empirical, seen as what would be controlled by the bottom line of probable occurrences in a given conflict situation - the game of deterrence. (C) Broader political considerations about the potential implications of long-term mobilization resulted in a shift from tactical operations to long-term strategy. (D) The combination of nuclear weapons and Cold War political considerations required a highly cohesive, strong military leadership to coordinate economic, political and military planning. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following are true of the Great Law of Peace of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy?\n(A) The Great Law alerts scholars to the problem of failing to sustain critique. (B) The case of the Great Law illustrates the importance of being critical of practices of research and knowledge production. (C) The Great Law is a challenge for traditional security studies, as it represents a proven non-state approach. (D) All of these. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat has been the impact of nuclear deterrence on international politics post-Cold War?\n(A) There is a developing scholarly trend toward proliferation pessimism, a pattern which has gained momentum rather than subsided with the end of the Cold War. There is concern that accidental war may occur, either through misperception, psychological or technical problems that can lead to spiralling tensions which result in a failure of deterrence policy. In addition, normal accidents resulting from the inability of a state to capably anticipate human-machine interactions in the complexities of the international (and anarchical) system may also occur. (B) Proliferation optimists dispute the claim that nuclear technology leads to a propensity of the holding actor towards war. They do concede that there is the risk that terrorists acquiring the weapon could create an existential threat to the international system, although the threat is not yet a reality. Furthermore, the ability to retaliate can eliminate an opponent's potential gain. (C) Despite the recognition that the ability to retaliate (the secure second-strike capability) produces a situation known as crisis stability, there is no consensus on the impact of nuclear capabilities, whether a source of stabilization or an existential threat. However there is agreement that the spread of WMD capacity to non-state actors would be fundamentally detrimental to international security based on the recognition that existing deterrence strategies and capabilities do not address the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed whilst the possibility exists, states will have to heighten security efforts. (D) Deterrence has proved to have been a source of stabilization during the Cold War but proliferation pessimists contend that new states' development programs do not provide sufficient guarantees that the state sponsors will act as good custodians. Weak state structures might result in sabotage, accidental use, or even theft. There is also the problem of states developing technology under the guise of deterrence whilst having ulterior motives. Domestic pressures may result in a regime gravitating towards nuclear war fighting strategies to win a rapid victory and strengthen status. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways does the Ideal Policy framework explain previous understandings of the necessary conditions for successful coercive diplomacy actions?\n(A) In light of the difficulties Western democracies have - sustaining popular support in conflicts not threatening their vital interests - opponents will regard Western threats to fight a prolonged war in such a scenario as a bluff. In practice this means that the coercer must be militarily superior and capable of denying their opponent the ability to realize their agenda and impose costs that directly threaten their interests. (B) To maximize credibility a threat of quick defeat backed by the required military capability is insufficient. A deadline of compliance must accompany it. It follows that a failure to set a deadline for compliance will be interrelated as evidence that the coercer lacks the will to implement the threat. (C) Assurance against new demands must be included to enhance the prospects of success. The incentive to comply will be significantly reduced if fears are justifiably present. (D) All of these options. To make non-compliance too costly the coercer must threaten to defeat the adversary to deny him his objectives quickly and with little costs. The threat is designed to accomplish two things: fear of unacceptable escalation; to make the threat credible. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what way might postcolonial analysis use the term 'thick space'?\n(A) To describe the international as hierarchically ordered and comprised of a dense set of constructed political, economic, social, military and cultural relations. (B) To describe the international as a space generated by the knowledge and practice of Western powers to favour the so-called third world. (C) To describe countries that are oppressed or marginalised within imperial readings of IR. (D) To describe the power embodied by sovereignty and the Westphalian norms that underpin Eurocentric perceptions of the international. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn which of these wars did the overwhelming technological superiority of one side lead to rapid defeat of its enemy?\n(A) Vietnam War. (B) Second World War. (C) First World War. (D) 1991 Gulf War. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich approach or perspective dominates post-Cold War Security Studies?\n(A) An examination of the social processes by which groups of people construct something as a threat. (B) A agenda for peace; peacekeeping, peace-making and conflict prevention as priorities for avoiding military confrontations. (C) The re-addressing of past practice as a possible cause of insecurity. (D) The strategy for state security that is preoccupied with creating and maintaining a distribution of power in the system, beneficial in terms of maintaining security and stability. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow can we define the role of the state in achieving human security?\n(A) The state is the most prominent threat in terms of committing violent acts against humans, thus directly threatening human security. (B) The state has the greatest material resources and power with which to secure the human referent object. (C) In the short term it is unhelpful to adopt a hands-off states and policy approach, as there are many current crises in which people need immediate relief from atrocities. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relevance of behaviour in economic security analysis?\n(A) Economics as the science of individuals making decisions, and applying economic science to security, allows us to understand, predict, and respond to the behaviour of states and other security actors. (B) The growth of capitalism has catapulted the individual consumer to a place of extreme significance in shaping the global market. The behaviour of consumers dictates the nature of the global system. (C) Behaviour, as a social constructivist concern, is not relevant to economic theory or security theory in general. (D) The behaviour of states is governed by their economic interests, in terms of securing favourable trade agreements and building strong domestic markets. Thus, their behaviour is dictated by economic considerations. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat long-term trends can be foreseen in the concept of environmental security?\n(A) In the post-9/11 reversion to traditional security thinking, environmental security as a concept is likely to enjoy continued attention from security analysts and policymakers. (B) Increasing evidence of the negative effects of environmental insecurity may increasingly govern national security interests and behaviour. The relevance will increase until national unilateralist initiatives are taken to retain the social organization of the nation which may have the adverse affect of increasing the prospect of conflict. (C) National security practices are the most effective means to achieving environmental security reforms to consolidate the socio-economic organizational base of the country against threat. The state on a practical level remains the most capable body - having the monopolization over the instruments of violence, and centralization of resources - to enter into trans-national agreements for the management of environmental constraints. (D) The impact of environmental problems seems unlikely to diminish so that the relevance of environmental security for policy will likely increase, particularly multilateral action on common security concerns to achieve forms of social organization that are ecologically sustainable. In some sense, current practices of national security are an impediment to achieving environmental security for all people. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is meant by the term 'energy security nexus'?\n(A) The 'energy security nexus' refers to the constant state of flux between energy supplies and levels of security that can be achieved by states that rely on these supplies. (B) An 'energy security nexus' exists where two states directly contend for access to the same, often limited, energy resource, such as oil reserves. (C) An 'energy security nexus' exists in the international system because the geographical distribution of energy supply and demand are not equal; thus states are drawn into complex and intertwined relationships with one another. (D) An 'energy security nexus' exists in the global system as a result of strategic planning by oil-rich states to ensure that the geographical distribution of supply and demand is not equal. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIt has been argued by Braun and Chyba (2004) that indigenous nuclear programs are making proliferation safeguards obsolete. In what ways, if any, can a case be made to support this argument?\n(A) WMD may provide the means to offset inferiority in conventional armaments compared to regional or superpower rivals. Possession of WMD may act as a deterrence to stronger opponents against potential threat, or be used to defeat their adversaries if engaged in combat. WMD capabilities may also be developed to gain automatic status and diplomatic influence amongst the international community. (B) Although there are fears posed by WMD proliferation that terrorists may gain the capacity to develop weapons, it would remain very difficult to construct even a primitive gun-type nuclear weapon. However, whilst nuclear capabilities may be elusive, international or domestic terrorist networks may have the resources to construct and use chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. (C) WMD vary vastly in terms of their availability, lethality, and destructive potential and the ease with which they can be manufactured. This means that the potential threats posed by each type of weapon are different. High yield, lightweight nuclear weapons use cutting-edge technology, whilst some chemical and biological weapons have been available for a long time. What separates WMD from conventional weapons is the potential to cause high level destruction. Because of the psychological fear possession can generate, WMD will remain highly desirable as a political weapon. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements is true within the postcolonial approach?\n(A) The international system is shaped through colonised discourse that establishes notions of certain states as inferior to others. (B) European practices of free trade and democracy are best suited to creating a peaceful and stable international system. (C) With the end of the Second World War and gradual dissolution of the British Empire, much of postcolonialism is redundant. (D) Colonial power exists only through the military actions of occupying states. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat differences emerged with regard to theorizing on both sides of the Atlantic?\n(A) From a US perspective, it is common to regard the main voice of security to be external. The question of what should or what should not count as security issues and how to conceptualize security. (B) The European school is based on a hegemonic form of knowledge. Knowledge is conceived as the understanding of causal mechanisms in relation to the material on which they act. (C) The different forms of knowledge relate to a conflicting conception of the relationship to policy: the problem-solving tradition in US political science vs. the critical studies in Europe. (D) Theorizing has parallel theoretical forms of knowledge based on empirically substantiated cause-and-effect relationships. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nTraditional approaches seek to explain why and how states have sought security. Which answer best describes the approach of traditional Security Studies?\n(A) Traditional theories explain international politics as the distribution of power among members of an international system, and specifically as the balance of power amongst major states. The relative power and the constraints of a state are reflective of the security strategy of that state. (B) The traditional approaches emerged in response to the Cold War, and to the accumulation of tension and competition between the two Superpowers. Traditional theories seek to explain behaviour in terms of arms accumulation. (C) Traditional conceptions emerged to explain the clusters of norms and patterns of behaviour that result in management of conflict and cooperation in the international system, in specific spheres of activities. (D) Traditional approaches are concerned with sovereignty. Sovereignty is a legal status; it gives the state control over a specified territory, means it is free from arbitrary intervention, and is responsible to no higher authority. Traditional theories examine the patterns of behaviour and relative cooperation of sovereign states in the international system. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements is the odd one out?\n(A) Institutions that facilitate the reproduction of cultural values, such as churches and schools, can be used to control and strengthen those cultural values. (B) Political-nationalist strategies can be employed by the state to boost nationalist interests. (C) Engagement of military forces to expel certain social groups from within a state. (D) Secession allows a societal group to withdraw from a larger entity where it may be under threat from dilution or destruction. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nTo what extent can societal identity be defended militarily?\n(A) If a threat posed by one group to another is military - particularly when linked to the defence of the historic homeland - armed response is required. At the intra-state level, many societal groups have no such means of armed protection and are compelled to employ non-military counter-measures. (B) Intra-state collectives faced with a political or military threat to their identity will form their own militia or defensive force as a means of protection. This results in the establishment of quasi-states which may undermine the territorial integrity of the nation. (C) Being aligned with the state, society has immediate and unequivocal access to the use of state forces (in the form of military retaliation) if there is a threat to societal security. (D) Societal groups do not face military threats; being constituted by identity and social cohesion, military forces are not engaged against societal groups in any meaningful way. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following defines a Revolution in Military Affairs?\n(A) A coup in which established leaders are ousted by an internal military force. (B) A wholesale shift in the way warfare is conducted and understood. (C) A watershed in technological advancement, such as the creation of nuclear weaponry. (D) A watershed in technological advancement which alters the fundamental characteristics of war. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relationship between historical materialism and the global justice movement?\n(A) Historical materialism as a paradigm is opposed to the broad goals of the global justice movement, which advocates an expansion of neo-liberalism in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. (B) Historical materialism has an established history of supporting global justice and opposing inequality; during the Cold War it was the basis of opposition to repressive communist states. (C) Historical materialism does not provide any unique perspective on capitalism, and is more concerned with the history of capitalist trade than with exploitation or alienation of populations in the system. (D) Historical materialism can concern both human rights and economic rights. It has been an important part of anti-globalisation and alternative-globalisation movements, including the Occupy protests. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relationship between Westphalian sovereignty and humanitarian intervention?\n(A) In its advocacy of global political institutions, the Treaty of Westphalia defined state sovereignty as being subjective to the behaviour of the political or ruling elite in that state, prioritizing human welfare over arbitrary values of sovereignty and thus legitimising humanitarian intervention where necessary. (B) Theories of Westphalian sovereignty decree that principles of non-intervention are paramount to achieving security; this has been extended into the contemporary global security environment in which international bodies such as the UN condemn humanitarian intervention, regarding it as detrimental to state-centric security. (C) State sovereignty and principles of non-interference that underpin the Westphalian approach can be disregarded, provided that there is a consensus amongst international actors that human life within the state is at risk, and where that risk is from the actions of the state itself. (D) The international society is governed by norms of Westphalian sovereignty that advocate non-intervention and the respect of state sovereignty as a means of achieving security. These norms are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which bans the use of force between states except in self-defence or when authorized by the UN. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways have post-Cold War developments undermined state authority?\n(A) The increased levels of globalization in trade, finance, and movement have produced an environment conducive to TNC by making it easier for criminals to move illicit profits and illegal goods, provide service, and smuggle persons across borders. (B) The wave of political transitions to democracy and economic transitions to free market capitalism since the 1980s - a phenomenon which frequently occurred simultaneously in the same country - have undermined state capacity to enforce rule of law and created new opportunities for organized crime groups to penetrate societies in transition. (C) The sharp increase in civil conflicts around the globe also created a new generation of refugees. These diasporas have provided the family and ethnic ties that help facilitate a transnational criminal enterprise. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the implications of recent technological change and development, according to peace studies?\n(A) Technological developments do not affect the majority of the world's population and so the advancement of telecommunications and digital media are not of concern to peace studies. (B) Digital information, media, and communications technology is likely to inspire greater harmony in the international system as the global population learns more about the world in which they live, and the lives of others around them. (C) With access to digital information, such as media and the internet, disempowered populations will become aware of their own exclusion and the inequalities of the global system. This could lead to widespread frustration and revolution. (D) Technological change and development is likely to strengthen the power of already dominant international players, and to reinforce the status quo of international relations. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nInefficient balancing or buckpassing by states can lead to what?\n(A) An increase in non-traditional security threats. (B) A more cooperative international system. (C) A more competitive international system. (D) An increase in inter-state alliances and military restraint. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is essential to societal security?\n(A) Sovereignty. (B) Identity. (C) All of these options. (D) Hegemonic ethnicity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following best describes the existing legacy of structural adjustment policies?\n(A) Structural adjustment policies have been largely successful in achieving their aims of macroeconomic security in the developing world. (B) The neoliberal principles on which structural adjustment policies have been based have proven well suited to promoting human welfare in developing countries. (C) Neoliberal based adjustment policies have caused great and unnecessary hardship in developing countries and there is still no evidence they achieved their objectives for macroeconomic stability and growth. (D) There is significant evidence that structural adjustment policies have promoted economic growth and macroeconomic stability in the countries in which they were applied. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not an economic tool of security policy?\n(A) Sanctions (B) Diplomacy (C) Trade (D) Aid \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the value of a post-structuralist critique in security studies?\n(A) To enable us to understand the workings of political subjecthoods left out of traditional discourses on security. (B) To examine the base of power and its construction, in greater depth than traditional analysis. (C) To challenge the idea that smart weapons and technology are the active subjects determining security today. (D) All of these. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following ways is NOT a defining feature that distinguishes postcolonialism from other perspectives on security?\n(A) Postcolonialism uniquely considers the nation or community group as a valid referent object in security studies. (B) Postcolonialism takes account not only of major war, but also of so-called 'small wars' and asymmetric conflicts. (C) Postcolonialism employs a distinctive focus on the role of violence in world politics. (D) Postcolonialism is not a predominantly or exclusively European form of knowledge. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways does the Ideal Policy framework provide an analytical framework for practitioners' success?\n(A) The Ideal Policy framework provides the analytical tools for understanding the contextual factors influencing the use of coercive diplomacy, for example why a policymaker takes the decision to, or not to, implement the Ideal Policy. (B) The Ideal Policy framework focuses on the use of coercive diplomacy to counter aggression. The Ideal Policy explains and predicts outcomes with a minimum of success conditions on the basis of the coercer's actions only. (C) The Ideal Policy provides an expansive framework, firstly for the examination of a maximum number of probable causal conditions and secondly to make the conditions applicable to the contextual factors relating to the use of coercive diplomacy. (D) The Ideal Policy framework recognizes that to make non-compliance too costly, the coercer must threaten to defeat the adversary or to deny the targets objectives. The condition for success is pivotal on the coercer's threat of force. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat challenges to liberalism were shown by the Western response to the Arab Spring?\n(A) The problematic contention that the liberalist perspective is based on ideas that are Western - such as democracy, free enterprise, and civil rights. (B) Liberalism did not provide a clear way to deal with the Arab Spring, and its inconsistencies and contradictions were exposed. (C) The liberalist perspective does not explain clearly how and when liberalism is supposed to spread, in this case to the Arab countries in question. (D) All of the above \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is realism?\n(A) Realism is a set of approaches to Security Studies that focuses on states, and tries to determine which strategy a state should adopt to achieve security and other goals. (B) Realism is the broad term that can be applied to any traditional approach to Security Studies. (C) Realism is a set of approaches that encompasses any security threat that involves the military. (D) Realism is defined by the belief that the behaviour of states constructs the international arena and that this behaviour is established through the internal environment of the state. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is NOT one of the 3 forms of violence identified by postcolonialism?\n(A) Material violence. (B) Epistemic violence. (C) Structural violence. (D) Pervasive violence. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following represent a move away from traditional interpretations of security studies?\n(A) Critical questioning. (B) Realist logic. (C) State-centric security analysis. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the causes of terrorism?\n(A) Democratization and nationalism inhibits the opportunity for terrorism: nationalism provides the ideological dynamic to unify ethnic differences, and democracy allows for the articulation of grievances in a constructive manner. Within this analysis states with weak democratic and nationalist credentials may provide the conditions that contribute to the development of terrorism. (B) Terrorism amongst Islamic groups is developed on ethnocentric lines opposed to the secularism that accompanies modernity. It is perhaps ironic that whilst terrorism was organized around the threat to Islamic society in the Middle East, the response to threat has resulted in groups in Europe feeling threatened by Muslim intrusion on Western values. (C) Capitalist market activities and technological and communication revolutions have increasingly intruded on traditional cultures and societies. Development inequalities and increasing marginalization of some ethnic or economic groups in the populations, alongside an increasing awareness of their dispossession provides grounds for breeding terrorism. (D) Non-democratic state structures characterized by a strong centralized system and repressive methods open a space for popular discontent to transform into operational terrorist activities with the intent of ending the political system. Whilst the opportunities for popular participation in liberal democracies prevent popular discontent from being articulated in a negative form. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat techniques and targets belong to a workable definition of terrorism and terrorist concerns?\n(A) Suicide attacks have been employed by terrorists having the advantage of enabling detonation at the last minute or when casualties will be maximized. A potential future danger is that a suicide attack could be combined with the use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons. (B) The ability to find vulnerable targets may be greater in democratic states since there are limitations on how much a government can monitor its citizen and will, in the event of an attack, generate more publicity. However, security forces in weak non-democratic countries also provide conditions conducive to terrorist activity, enabling relative freedom of operation and movement. (C) WMD have not been used very often, requiring high levels of resources and trained personnel for use. Furthermore, most terrorist groups still prefer to use more predictable methods for inflicting maximum casualties on the target. Yet to some extent, terrorist groups have gained a psychological edge because of the fear of use of WMD. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat has been the importance of the new critical schools of security studies for the development of security studies? Have they simply become IR and lost their position that defines them as security studies?\n(A) The next generation is likely to develop their arguments in engagements with policy questions and in direct interaction with policymakers and think tanks. (B) Policy knowledge reflected in terms of theories, when an interaction emerges between the US and European thinkers, the theoretical context will be the same. (C) The set up continues to be one in which security studies is located between the IR discipline and technical experts and practitioners. (D) European security studies will be treated as a form of (policy) knowledge, whereas security theory in the US will treat this as the main empirical source for critical analysis. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways do environmental issues present a concern for peace researchers in the twenty-first century?\n(A) Environmental constraints can limit conventional economic growth, posing a direct threat to economic security and development. (B) Environmental changes, such as rising sea levels, can threaten the land on which populations are settled as well as their access to resources. Migration as a result of these changes presents threats to societal, economic and other sectors of security. (C) Environmental degradation and increased demand for resources is likely to lead to scarcity and result in conflict. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nThere is a need to establish the nature and consequences of insecurity in the developing world. Why is this?\n(A) Empirically there is a need to understand why virtually all war and major political violence since 1945 continues to take place in the developing world and why the majority originates from internal rather than external sources. Between 20 - 30 million have lost their lives in more than one hundred intra-state wars and there are 20 - 40 wars ongoing in any given year. (B) Conceptually there is a need to find appropriate theories and concepts that accommodate the unique character of the security situation in the developing world; intra-state war, communal violence, poverty, famine, weapons proliferation, crime, political instability, socio-economic breakdown and state collapse. (C) From a normative perspective there are clear humanitarian imperatives to resolve the lack of security; 90 per cent of victims of intra-state violence are civilians, half a million are killed by light weapons, 40,000 a year die from hunger and poverty whilst tens of millions die from disease, chronic poverty, and inadequate health, education, employment, and environmental causes. (D) All of these options. There is a profound disjuncture between security in developed nations and the kind of security in the world's \"zones of instability\". From a global perspective insecurity is more of a norm than security is. However, globalization essentially means that these forms of insecurity cannot be contained within increasingly porous national borders. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhen considering the international system from a realist perspective, which of the following statements concerning the advent of war is true?\n(A) War is more likely to occur when a state is losing power, a decline in a state's ability to protect itself from attack, coercion and vulnerability increases its motivation to engage in aggressive behaviour. (B) War may be more likely to occur in multipolar international systems where, among other reasons, states have the incentive and opportunity to buckpass. (C) War is more likely when the offence-defence balance of the international system favours offence, thus creating a more competitive environment for states. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nDescribe the relationship between the military security domain and social constructivism.\n(A) It is possible to study military security through non-realist analytical lenses, and to adopt a social constructivist approach that regards cultural and social factors as being important focuses of study. This has led to claims that broader approaches to military endeavours should be adopted, including the proposed employment of social and development specialists in conflict situations. (B) Social constructivists reject the foundations of realism upon which military security studies are based; in rejecting the empirical basis of security studies, the social constructivist approach becomes inadequate in its attempts to formulate military security theory. (C) Social constructivism is based on philosophical ideas that directly contradict the foundations of military-centred theory. The tendency is for social constructivists to dismiss military endeavours as clumsy and as being detrimental to human security. (D) In order to study military security, analysts must adopt a realist lens. However, this can later be combined with other approaches, including social constructivism, in order to consider the security of different referent objects such as the environment or human security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow do gun shows and international arms fairs contribute to illicit arms markets?\n(A) Although the subject of vocal opposition by campaigners, gun shows employ strict legal restrictions on participants, ensuring that those with criminal records are not able to purchase weapons. (B) Gun shows are regulated to ensure that weapons purchased legally cannot be resold on the black or grey markets. (C) Gun shows and arms fairs do not contribute in a significant way to the trade in illicit arms. (D) Gun shows and arms fairs often do not require participants to undergo security checks before purchasing weapons, and encourage an environment where more attention is paid to price tags than details about where weapons will be distributed or used. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements is the odd one out?\n(A) Societal groups have a right to survive. (B) Societal groups have their own reality. (C) Societal groups are constituted by social interaction. (D) Societal groups are multiple-identity units. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following was not stated as an objective of the Commission on Human Security when it was launched?\n(A) To promote public understanding, engagement and support of human security and its underlying imperatives. (B) To develop the concept of human security as an operational tool for policy formulation and implementation. (C) To propose a concrete program of action to address critical and pervasive threats to human security. (D) To develop a new international justice system to enhance human security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn terms of cyber-security, what is meant by 'resilience' and why is it important?\n(A) Resilience refers to the ability of an IT system to identify and defend against a cyber-security threat. (B) The only way to build a truly resilient IT system is to ensure that it can repel all types of threat and remain and avoid attack. (C) Resilience in an IT system refers to its ability to function when there are no threats to its security. (D) Resilience refers to the ability of IT systems to recover from attack. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHas TNC become a national security threat?\n(A) Transnational crime is regarded as a threat to economic development. Organized crime is seen as a threat to development insofar as it undermines the rule of law and deters foreign investment by increasing the level of insecurity in the host communities. Additionally, criminals often reinvest their proceeds in the legal economy and have unfair advantage through access to cheap capital and their ability to intimidate commercial adversaries. In societies with high levels of TNC, legitimate investors are often reluctant to commit resources. (B) TNC undermines democratic stability. In many states, transnational criminal enterprises have taken advantage of the instability that has accompanied the democratic transitions to post communist societies, using their influence in the upper reaches of the state and thus shielding themselves from law enforcement. The corruption of public institutions and the perceived inefficacy of the rule of law in new democracies contribute to undermining public confidence in and loyalty to the new regime. (C) The ability of transnational crime to evade state border controls and provide new avenues for the illicit transportation of goods and persons challenges the state's ability to exercise its core functions as guarantor of national sovereignty, the monopolization over the control of force, and as the provider of the common good. TNC criminal activities corrupt and undermine numerous state agencies, providing mechanisms by which their activities can affect the very nature of government and state policy in the host countries. (D) All of the above are correct. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways is a fusion nuclear device different from a fission device?\n(A) A fusion weapon is a three-stage-bomb that uses an implosion device to create a fission reaction, which then detonates a fusion reaction. It is often referred to as a thermo-nuclear or hydrogen device and has unlimited destructive potential. (B) A fusion reaction is created when the nuclei of two light elements are combined, the reaction resulting in heavier elements fragmenting into smaller parts. This fragmentation releases energy of limited destructive capacity, the extent of energy released dependent on the mass of material used. (C) A fusion device is a two-stage process where a gun-type device is used to trigger a series of fission reactions with the cumulative result being the production of a high energy flash explosion with unlimited thermal energy. (D) Fusion weapons have a highly specific destructive effect. The heavier element produced from a fissions reaction, and the difference in mass from the two lighter nuclei (which is translated into an energy explosion) can be precision calculated. Bombs even within the multi-megaton range have unlimited military utility, their destructive capability can be manufactured according to the target. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn defining the term 'historical materialism', which of the following statements best defines the term 'materialism'?\n(A) Materialism refers to HM's focus on class and the productive basis of societies, as well as the ways in which social structures have the capacity to change and produce change. (B) Materialism refers to the roots of HM in the postmodern schools of thought. (C) The term materialism refers to the focus of HM on consumerism and the centrality of economic power in the approach. (D) In their rejection of class orientated political interaction, HM scholars refer to wealth instead as the accumulation or access to physical resources, coining the term materialism to describe this approach. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following events can be regarded as contributing to the emergence of environmental security during the 1960s and 1970s?\n(A) From the 1970s a number of scholars attempted to critique orthodox security discourse and practices, highlighting their inability to manage environmental risks to national and international security. (B) There became a growing recognition that environmental changes do not merely pose risks to ecosystems - they also pose risks to human well-being. (C) A shared environmental consciousness emerged in developing countries. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIs TNC a new phenomenon?\n(A) There is little evidence to substantiate the claim that there is a real and increasing threat posed by the scale and scope of transnational crime in the 1980s to 1990s beyond the consensus that concern over the levels of crime were generated by the military re-conceiving its role in light of the dissolution of the Cold War. (B) Whereas illegal markets were territorially bounded and isolated in the past, the contemporary form illicit markets tend to be interrelated and mutually supporting and more embedded in the legal economy. (C) TNC is a response by the dispossessed in response to the asymmetric economic development of nation states and the inequity of global market capitalism married with environmental constraints on development. (D) Transnational crime is no longer the exclusive domain of certain geographic areas or ethnic groups becoming globalized in operation, increasing the number of groups and countries affected and increasing the size of the illegal market ratio to licit trade. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not a response to the illicit arms trade?\n(A) 2001 UN Protocol Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Their Parts and Components and Ammunition. (B) 2001 UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects. (C) 2001 UN Security Council Resolution 1308 on HIV/AIDS as a National Security Threat. (D) 2005 Marking and Tracing of Weapons Accord. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nPrior to the late 20th century the role of women in war had been neglected as an area of concern in security studies, for what reason?\n(A) Women did not actively engage in warfare as combatants and so questions of gender or the role of women were not important in considerations of security. (B) The roles that women played in violence, be it as victims, perpetrators or otherwise, was framed in terms of what effect their roles had on the state, rather than as individuals or as women. (C) The role of women was given appropriate consideration; women have fulfilled many vital roles in the support of the dominant security system. (D) Women are generally unsupportive of warfare and prefer to engage in anti-war or opposition movements, rendering their contribution to the study of warfare as marginal. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the main criticisms of the realist argument against humanitarian intervention?\n(A) Realist opposition to humanitarian intervention is based on assumptions that states will protect their citizens. (B) The realist position overlooks the responsibilities that are inherent to sovereignty. (C) Critics of humanitarian intervention overlook the wide body of international law relating to basic human rights and the consensus on grave crimes such as genocide. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements best describes our understanding of the term 'globalization'?\n(A) Globalization refers to the process by which shared hegemonic values pervade societies across the globe, drawing them into an ideological community, most often based on the economic principles of capitalism. (B) Best described as intensification of worldwide social relations and increasing interdependence, globalization is the result of the compression of space and time through the development of new technologies. (C) Globalization is best described as the 'shrinking' of the global community, drawing people into closer contact with one another primarily at the economic and technical levels. This process began in the early 20th century and was based on the ideological expeditions that originated from western Europe. (D) Globalization has occurred since the 1980s, originating in Western Europe as a centre of political power and technological advancement. The process is a direct result of technological advancement in communications and travel industries that facilitate the efficient transportation of physical objects, people and ideas across the globe. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways may weak states be challenged externally?\n(A) Powerful states may employ diplomatic pressures to ensure that weak states comply with international norms. This may involve economic sanctions and withholding weaponry deals, which undermines the state's ability to pay or supply the army which increases the risk of army disaffection and possible coups. (B) Weak states are threatened by the proliferation of small arms which can be used in a challenge to the authority of the state. Small and light weapons are purchasable through legal and illegal channels and are prevalent in regions with warlords, criminals and private militias. (C) Weak states cannot remain isolated from processes of globalization. Increasingly porous borders lead to migration and immigration. In order to compete in a globalized market weak states look to secure financial-credit assistance or aid from international institutions. However, these processes undermine the hegemonic idea of the state and societal identity is blurred which makes it difficult for the state to sustain its ideological appeal. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is applicable when considering the concept of security dilemmas in terms of societal identity?\n(A) For societal security dilemmas ambiguity can stem from two sides of nationalism; cultural (positive) and ethnic (negative). Ethnic (political) nationalism is often described as more malign and linked to state disintegration, whereas cultural nationalism is often seen as benign, working within existing state structures. (B) Clear distinctions between cultural nationalism and political nationalism are difficult to make: cultural nationalism may sometimes be compelled to change itself from a solely cultural movement into a political movement and be conflated with political nationalism. (C) Dominant actors may exaggerate threat perceptions with the intent of mobilizing political support which can result in action reaction processes. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is meant by the term 'security dilemma' and how does it impact on the international security environment?\n(A) The security dilemma can be utilised as a force for stabilising the international environment, placing all states at equal risk of military attack and discouraging a counter-productive accumulation of military force; the impact of security dilemmas is largely restricted to the realm of military security, although this can have far-reaching effects. (B) The security dilemma arises out of the anarchic international system that is conceptualized by realists. Within this environment, states are obliged to seek security through their own military efforts; this is perceived as threatening to other states and so triggers an arms race spiral. The security dilemma has implications for security sectors other than the military, particularly the political and societal security sectors. (C) The term security dilemma refers to the state of constant insecurity that is inherent to the traditional realist paradigm of international security. Security dilemmas will have most notable effects on human and societal security, typically outweighing the initial implications on traditional security domains such as the political and military sphere. (D) Security dilemmas have implications for other realms of security beside the military domain, although their effect on societal security is limited. The term primarily refers to the ways in which states conceptualize their own military capabilities with regards to those around them. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements does NOT characterize arms control as a strategic policy?\n(A) Arms control is an example of cooperative security, designed to address the problems associated with the security dilemma. (B) Policies of arms control and disarmament was pursued during the Cold War in an attempt to achieve security. (C) Arms control does not challenge the central role of weaponry and military power in the international system, instead focusing on the problems produced by specific weapon systems and relationships. (D) After its successful application during the Cold War, arms control has retained its momentum and applicability in the contemporary security environment. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the types of terrorism? Are all groups the same?\n(A) Religious terrorism seems to be one of the hallmarks of the post-Cold War age. Religious terrorism is understood to denote the extremist activities of Islamic fundamentalism. Al-Qaeda is the most prominent example of religious terrorist groups and is described as globally operational, although religious terrorism is not limited to the al-Qaeda network. Christian beliefs were used to justify the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, as well as anti-abortionist assassinations in the USA. (B) Terrorist groups have drawn their ideas from ideologies. There was a wave of terrorist violence in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s rooted in various leftist and Marxist ideologies but these began to wane by the late 1980s. Right-wing groups are also present, often with overtly xenophobic and racist views, targeting migrants and foreign workers. (C) Groups defined by their ethnic or linguistic identifications are a broad category for the organization of terrorist groups. In some countries a large number of anti-colonial groups were ethnically based and used terrorist tactics in the wars of liberation. Such loyalties and tactics have in some cases proved immutable post-independence. Ethnic and linguistic affiliation has proved a powerful motivation for terrorist actions when combined with territory, and ethnic independence from another ethnic group. (D) All of the above are correct. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat kind of actors are involved in the defence trade?\n(A) The defence trade concerns legitimate business interaction between states procuring or selling military equipment. (B) Military organisations are the sole actors in the defence trade. (C) Not only state actors are involved in the defence trade. Non-state actors, including illegal groups, are also key players. (D) The defence trade refers solely to the trade in weapons and small arms that takes place outside the legal interactions between states. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow has HM developed during and since the Cold War?\n(A) During the post Cold War period there has grown an increasingly disparity between the analytical framework of security studies and HM, sidelining the latter and excluding it from mainstream study. (B) Following the popularity of HM during the Cold War it has enjoyed a gradual inclusion into security dialogue and is now considered one of the main paradigms within security studies. (C) The negativity attached to HM during the Cold War restricted the prominence of HM at this time, excluding it from mainstream security studies. Following this, the broadening of the security studies agenda has lead to increasing inclusion of HM as an area for study. (D) HM was developed as an approach to security studies following the Cold War and has flourished in the proceeding security environment. It has also enjoyed reputable success thanks to its affiliation with prominent actors during the Cold War. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nTo what extent is TNC linked with terrorism, and in what ways?\n(A) There is growing evidence of direct partnerships between terrorist groups and transnational criminal organization resulting from the end of the Cold War and the need to secure new forms of financial sponsorship. For most terrorist groups criminal activity has been amongst the most important sources of funds with the diffusion of terrorist networks globally operating in correlation to the diffusion of illicit market activities. (B) The nexus between terrorist groups and criminal organizations are generally a temporary aberration. Differential long-term strategic goals meant that levels of cooperation were generally tactical temporary alliances that would have little pervasive effects. (C) There is increasing evidence over the convergence of terrorism and transnational crime, but there is no consensus about whether this phenomenon is a long-term strategic alliance or episodic \"marriages of convenience\". (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best describes the relationship between realist international relations theorists and peace researchers in the early 1960s?\n(A) Both peace researchers and realists advocated an academic focus on the escalation of the arms race. Although tensions existed between the groups in terms of their proposed solutions to this crisis, there existed a consensus that the Soviet bloc should be eliminated as a nuclear threat, thus favouring the survival of Western liberal democracies. (B) In contrast to the realist school, peace researchers looked beyond the accumulation of nuclear weapons for a focus to their studies; this resulted in tensions between the two groups, with the former believing that the attainment of superior military strength was paramount to achieving security. (C) Whilst peace researchers indentified the escalation of the arms race as a result of failures by the League of Nations, realist scholars deemed it to be the natural progression of ideological differences between the Soviet bloc and Western liberal democracies. This resulted in irreconcilable differences between the study agendas of realists and peace researchers. (D) The East-West divide of the Cold War gave rise to a sharp divide between realists and early peace studies theorists. Whilst realists wished to focus research on that which would favour the survival of Western liberal democracies, advocates of peace studies regarded this approach as being narrow and Western ethnocentric. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is an important outcome of the 'energy security nexus'?\n(A) Attempts to exert control over energy reserves in the South have consequences for the sustainability of cooperation between core powers; the emergence of geopolitical rivalries over this form of control has implications for international security. (B) All of these options. (C) United by common insecurities concerning the production and supply of energy resources, international actors are forced into negotiation and cooperation between states increases. (D) By virtue of their energy resources to which the global 'North' desires access, states in the 'South' gain power in the international arena and have redressed the global North-South divide and associated inequalities. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways did strategic circumstances have an effect on environmental security perspectives?\n(A) The end of the Cold War created the space for security policy and security studies to be re-considered in light of growing environmental consciousness underlined by multilateralism in policy action. (B) In 1973 the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) restricted oil supplies which underlined the industrial capacity of the military leaving a profound psychological impact requiring that security be linked to national interests: the securing of energy deals and the environment became related to military capability diplomacy. (C) Ideologically driven military security was replaced by a need to preserve territorial integrity in wake of the collapse of communism. Military security was a high priority given the threat of spill-over. The environment remained a peripheral concern to the security institutions occupied with the new security environment post-Cold War. (D) The end of the Cold War order created the intellectual space for the broadening of security issues beyond Cold War military mentalities. Research among political and environmental scientists discussed ways in which new security issues could be addressed. The plethora of publications produced, however, had little effect on policy. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nThe following statements define the conceptualization of 'class' within HM; which is incorrect?\n(A) All advocates of HM accept that social class is important. (B) Within the HM paradigm, the only form of class that matters is social class. (C) The focus of HM lies predominantly on class and class in relation to capital. (D) HM regards class as being far more complex than a simple division between a capitalist ruling class and working class. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following security sectors are intrinsically linked with energy security?\n(A) Economic and development security. (B) Regime and international security. (C) Environmental and human security. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relationship between HM and realism?\n(A) Both HM and realism are based on the notion that there exist within society certain discernable realities. (B) HM has some aspects in common with realism, liberalism, and social constructivism, but it offers something distinctive in having class conflict within capitalism as its central focus. (C) Whilst HM recognises the importance of the state as an actor within the international system, it also purports that states prioritize the interests of the ruling-class elite. (D) All of the above \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat factors enabled the expansion of transnational crime (TNC) in the 1990s?\n(A) Transnational crime developed as a result of the declining expenditure on defence and the standing down of armies, which reduced the risk of activities. (B) TNC as a concept emerged in the academic sphere as linked to human security concerns and developmental opportunities in weak states as a means of conflict resolution and peace building in Europe. (C) Transnational criminal activities have always been a feature of the international system. In the policy community, the growth of interest in TNC is due to the increasing sophistication of intelligence and communications technology, which has enabled the true representation of the scale and the scope of the problem to be known. (D) International trends such as globalization may have had the unintentional consequence of opening up new spaces for the development of transnational crime. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhy do so many feminist scholars regard the exclusion of women from the military sphere or from armed combat as important?\n(A) Veterans of armed conflict may be rewarded by gaining powerful offices, often in political positions and in state institutions. (B) Participation in military activity is often regarded as a sign of strength, patriotism and courage. (C) The foundations for decisions not to allow female participation are commonly based on arbitrary and discriminatory rationale that can limit women's participation in civil society in other ways. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn the context of energy security and the production of oil, which of the following does not define the term 'stability'?\n(A) The absence of challenges to the regime of oil-producing states. (B) A political and economic situation in which the status quo of production, exportation and supply is maintained. (C) The promotion of human security and the affiliated environmental security as a priority within oil-producing states. (D) The security of regimes deemed 'friendly' by North American, European, and international oil company interests. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways is the case for humanitarian intervention, as outlined in this chapter, limited?\n(A) It is not self-evident that individuals do have universal and fundamental human rights. (B) Advocates of humanitarian intervention exaggerate the extent of global consensus about the use of force to protect human rights. (C) Any norm endorsing the use of force to protect individual rights could be abused by powerful states. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements is not applicable to the Securitization process?\n(A) Securitization reveals the power of the securitizing actor. (B) Where the securitizing actor is a democratic state, the relevant audience is usually the wider population who have the right to reject the speech act. (C) The adoption of extraordinary measures can retrospectively convince an audience of the existential threat. (D) Within authoritarian and other undemocratic regimes, the relevant political decision-making is often dominated by the military and political elite. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nDuring the 20th century, how has the focus of security studies changed regarding military security?\n(A) Security studies has always favoured a wide range of subjects when considering the field of security. Different types of security, most notably of human security and economic security, have enjoyed a great deal of attention in traditional security studies, alongside military security. After the Cold War this approach was broadened to include other types of security such as environmental and personal security. (B) Military security has emerged since the Cold War as the dominant sector within security analysis; both scholars and practitioners recognise the paramount importance of pursuing military security, based on the idea that military capabilities pose the greatest threat to human and state survival. (C) Prior to the Cold War the focus of security studies lay in the military sector, although environmental security was rapidly emerging as a serious threat to security, forcing analysts to reconsider the state-centric frameworks they had previously employed. (D) During the Cold War most security analysts agreed that military security should be the focus of security studies; as a result, there was not much discussion about what security entailed, other than the military sector. Following this period security studies have been broadened to include the wider range of sectors that we see today, including environmental and political security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not a purported limitation of the liberalist approach?\n(A) Liberalism poses great difficulty in defining when the use of force would be justified or necessary. (B) Liberalism is often internally inconsistent, limiting its applicability for use as a guide. (C) A failure to address the importance of a wide range of actors in the decision-making processes of the international system. (D) Liberalist influence merely reflects Western dominance, potentially undermining its relevance in the future. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements is not applicable to the development of peace studies in the twentieth century?\n(A) Within peace studies, one of the later developments was a major interest in conflict prevention, conflict resolution, and peacekeeping. (B) At the height of the Cold War, peace studies was frequently labelled 'appeasement studies' and was bitterly opposed by critics. (C) By the 1970s, prominent peace researchers were calling for a broadening in the remit of the field but were largely unsuccessful in their attempts. (D) Peace studies sought to provide a more global and non-state centric view of major issues of conflict. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn the contemporary context, how can peace studies best be defined?\n(A) Following the expansion of peace studies in the decline of the Cold War, the field has emerged as an independent and autonomous area of study that addresses issues surrounding conflict resolution, economic security and the cessation of violence at both an international and sub-national level. As a field of research, peace studies are best defined by their distinction from development studies and international relations. (B) Peace studies are best defined by its research agenda that focuses on the search for non-violent measures by which to end conflict. Peace researchers adopt a 'top-down' approach to conflict resolution that prioritises the issues surrounding violence and the use of force, focusing on instigating agents in an attempt to secure that actor as the referent object to security. (C) Peace studies cannot be defined as a specific academic approach due to the shifting nature of its research agenda and the diversity of interests addressed by peace researchers. However, following the Cold War the success of the field has been such that it boasts a number of research institutes and attracts global and interdisciplinary attention. (D) Peace studies is defined by a concern with the underlying causes of phenomena in IR, a global outlook, an interdisciplinary approach, the search for non-violent transformations, an analytical and normative approach, and the adoption of multi-level analysis that links theory and practice within research. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat role does 'Information' play in the economic science of decision making?\n(A) Information is not important to decision making in economic theory; rather, it is an actor's perceptions of situations that will inform their decision making process. (B) Information has no special significance to economic decision making, which is guided more by external forces that coerce actors than their own rational choices. (C) Information plays a significant role in decision making because, although theory asserts that actors act in their own best interest, 'rational action' depends on the information available to them at the time. (D) Information has become an important resource in the 21st century and can be sold and traded as a market commodity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following are frequently cited criticisms of HM?\n(A) HM pays insufficient attention to the role of the labourer, instead focusing on the capitalist as the source of power and most important actor. HM can also allude to capitalist power structures, to the detriment of supporting the human security of workers. (B) HM too often accuses capitalism of acting solely in self-serving ways, and explains everything in terms of class struggle, to the detriment of wider analysis. Some versions of HM claim to have uncovered objective laws of history which are widely disputed in their accuracy. (C) HM is inevitably reductionist and oversimplifies the complexities of capitalism, recognising only its negative aspects and harmful effects. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the referent object in contemporary cyber-security?\n(A) Digitalised sensitive information (B) Critical Information Infrastructures (C) Government IT systems (D) Telecommunication networks \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following phrases is not likely to indicate legitimacy in the new terminology of RMA?\n(A) Surgical strike. (B) Indiscriminate attack. (C) Smart bomb. (D) Precision target. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following did not emerge as a trend of the defence trade in the 20th century?\n(A) The arms trade shifts from being a private to a government controlled enterprise. (B) An increase in the defence trade. (C) A decrease in the arms trade. (D) A growth in the number and variety of weapons traded. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements concerning the study of identity is not applicable to social constructivism?\n(A) Identity defines actors, and tells us who they are, what their preferences and interests are, and how those preferences might inform their actions. (B) Identity is of fundamental importance to the social constructivist perspective because it is the basest principle in defining behaviour; it is a naturally bestowed quality comprised of certain unalterable behavioural characteristics. (C) The identities, interests and behaviour of political agents are socially constructed by shared ideas, collective meaning, and interpretations and assumptions about the world. (D) Actors form their identity through interaction, which in turn defines the types of relationship formed between these actors. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these are characteristics of realist theory?\n(A) The international system is anarchic. (B) States assess one another in terms of their power and capabilities rather than their internal variations. (C) States are unitary and rational actors; sovereign states will act in a way suited to achieving their goals. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements defines the Copenhagen School's view of security?\n(A) Security is a socially constructed concept, relative to the society in which it exists, and what will constitute an existential threat is accordingly subjective. (B) Security is best defined using the traditional paradigm, with the state as the referent object to be secured using extraordinary measures where possible. (C) To best understand security one must adopt a constructivist approach, threats exist only when articulated by a wider audience and may warrant the implementation of emergency measures. (D) Security exists as an empirically verifiable and independent condition that changes only slightly, if at all, with regards to the social context in which it is applied. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these best describes the concept of hegemonic masculinity?\n(A) The inherent promotion of feminine characteristics in society. (B) Social dominance of men over women that results from the designation of 'masculine' characteristics as more valued than 'feminine' characteristics. (C) All of these options. (D) The acknowledgement that gender identity exists in many forms and is not binary. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow do institutional constraints affect behaviour?\n(A) Institutional constraints limit the amount of resources to be spent on some good and force actors to choose how to manage the limited wealth available to them. (B) Institutions are the social norms and expectations that affect an actor's goals and ambitions. (C) Institutional constraints refer to tools of the state such as schools, prisons, and hospitals; the provision of resources for these institutions makes demands on political leaders. (D) Institutions are humanly devised constrains that structure human interaction, they are man-made rules that guide decision making and govern behaviour. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following policies is not true of economic policy?\n(A) Economic policies must take into account the incentives of not only the leaders, but the populations intended to influence. (B) Policymakers can incentivize security-promoting behaviours in others through the use of sanctions and aid. (C) Trade policies can entice leaders to change behaviours in exchange for access to markets or trade preferences, and advance security. (D) Concern with poverty is a humanitarian issue that has no direct link to economic science, although it might be alleviated through aid. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not an assertion made in the realist case against humanitarian inventions?\n(A) Armed force should only ever be used in the national interest and that humanitarian intervention is therefore imprudent. (B) Foreign intervention reduces the proportion of wars that end in outright victory, it leaves behind an unstable peace that is likely to reignite. (C) Foreign intervention tends to prolong wars; it is inappropriate and does not work. (D) Humanitarian intervention prioritises the human as the referent object of security, undermining the state-centric approach of realism. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhy, in the contemporary studies of security, is the subject of energy security so important?\n(A) There exists an array of contemporary challenges to energy security, ranging from resource scarcity concerns to dangers of political instability. (B) The existence of reliable supplies of energy determines the ability of a nation to achieve economic development. (C) Energy security encompasses a broad range of issues that are both contemporary and fundamental to security, ranging from the local and individual to the global scale. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is a legitimate threat to societal security?\n(A) Political policies designed to alter demographic characteristics of a state. (B) All of these options. (C) Legislation that criminalises certain cultural behaviours or practice. (D) The use of military force to conduct ethnic-cleansing through displacement and killing. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements best describes the orientation of military security within the traditional conception of security studies?\n(A) Strategic studies are the central concern of international relations, within strategic studies, the subset of security studies focuses on military security. (B) Military security is a central concern within international relations and dominates the scholarship. Within international relations, strategic studies form a subset of academic interest, within which security studies feature occasionally. (C) Strategic studies are best conceptualized as a subset of international relations, and within strategic studies, military security is one of the dominant concerns. Security studies are a subset of strategic studies. (D) Military security is the central concern of strategic studies; and strategic studies are a subset of security studies. Military security is one of the central concerns of security studies, and security studies is a subset of international relations. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements cannot be applied to the initial development of peace studies?\n(A) Mathematicians and natural scientists entered the field, which was otherwise a social-sciences area of study, adding to the interdisciplinary nature of the field. (B) Now of fundamental importance to peace studies as a field of research, the creation of journals was not a prominent feature of the peace studies until late in the twentieth century. (C) Most early work was carried out in North America and Scandinavia. (D) The establishment of research institutes across the world has been one of the lasting successes of peace studies. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nSince the end of the Cold War, how has the use of coercive diplomacy by Western powers changed?\n(A) Coercive diplomacy has proven a successful policy tool and one that is integral to conflict management. The successes of the past policy initiatives in the post-9/11 community have reinforced the trend toward coercive diplomacy by increasing American political will to counter mass casualty terrorism in failing states. (B) The favourable geo-political environment, characterized by an overwhelmingly Western military superiority and a low risk of hostile great power intervention, has generated pressures and incentives for Western policymakers to promote their policy agenda, and to manage armed conflicts from weak states and failing states. (C) The demise of the ideological bipolar division of international society in the Cold War, rather than resulting in a reduction of hostilities, has left an unstable legacy where a policy of force and mass retaliation continues to pose a very real threat. Risk of uncontrollable escalation still remains but in a different form; mass casualty terrorism, contagion from failing states and non-state actors seeking to acquire WMD are the primary concern of states and require responses in the form of military intervention. (D) The hostile geopolitical environment has encouraged states to pursue military strategies in order to secure their interests. The use of violence rather than diplomacy or incentives has become the primary response to threats, whether these are posed by other states, resource scarcity, pandemic diseases, or other non-traditional threats. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nTo what extent and to what effect has the environment been securitized?\n(A) The securitization of environmental security concerns has raised the profile of environmental security issues among both foreign and domestic security policymakers and agencies. It is now uniformly recognized that environmental change can be considered as an issue of high security politics. (B) Environmental security has led to a 'trading off' of military security for environmental security with the allocation of resources committed to solving environmental problems. A particular emphasis has been placed on environmental change as the cause of violent conflict and addressing environmental threats from other factors than domestic causes. (C) The environment has been 'securitized' in the sense that environmental security has been used to make them matters of 'high politics'. This has to some degree raised the profile of critical issues among policymakers and agencies so that the environment can be considered an issue of security. But whilst the issue has been broadened there has been little change in policy and action in terms of the referent object of environmental security. (D) The national security perspective on environmental issues has undermined the utility of the concept of environmental security. The militarization of environmental problems has decreased the ability of policymakers to 'capture' the critical nature of environmental problems and the environmental dimensions to social vulnerability. The reconciliation of environmental security with national security, and global levels of international change cannot be made without trading in the security interests of the state. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not a common criticism of Securitization?\n(A) A loose and broad conceptualization of security can lead to vagueness and a lack of conceptual and analytical coherence. (B) When the securitizing actor is not the state, it can be unclear what would constitute an extraordinary measure. (C) The model relies on a definition of distinctive political and security realms, which are not always clearly defined. (D) The theory of securitization lacks coherence in terms of its employment as a tool for analytical studies in security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements characterizes the traditional concept of national security, as opposed to human security?\n(A) All of these options. (B) In the national security approach, real threats are only those posed to human life, human rights, or human dignity. (C) The traditional interpretations of security and threats are important boundaries that define human security. (D) The concept of national security is too narrow to be useful when analysing the broad threats that currently exist. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow does Buzan's concept of 'societal security' mark a departure from traditional understandings of security?\n(A) Securing the sustainable development of the state was dependent on societal security as an independent interest that was not secondary or dependent on the other sectors, including the military. (B) The end of the Cold War allowed security studies to move beyond the confines of the dominant realist and neorealist perspectives, with an emerging interest in other, non-military, conceptions of security. Those who wished to broaden the scope of security studies advocated the inclusion of resource, environment, and other referent points for analysis. (C) Societal security referred to the sustainable development of traditional patterns of military capabilities. Military threats could be subdivided to include the infrastructural strength, the technology, personnel, the economic base and the political base of the military security sector. (D) Contemporary processes of globalization and societal conflict required the development of new conceptual tools beyond the state as the referent object. Security was dependent on factors beyond geographically conceived survival: survival of the state was superseded by survival of the nation (ethnic) state. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following conditions does not constitute 'human security'?\n(A) A condition where people are given relief from the traumas that afflict human development, are safe from threats and are protected from hurtful disruptions to their daily lives. (B) A condition in which every citizen is free from the threat of physical violence, regardless of their race, ethnicity or other identity. (C) A condition where people are guaranteed the ability to live and develop, free from political oppression or prejudice, safe from threats posed by their own or external state actors. (D) A condition where people exist independently of state support, where human life is self-sufficient in that individuals do not require the assistance of state apparatus in order to live securely. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the effects of nuclear weapons?\n(A) A nuclear blast produces EMP, a thermal light pulse, blast, and fallout at the moment of detonation. The electro-magnetic pulse occurs when gamma radiation interacts with matter (the atmosphere), \"the Compton effect.\" EMP produces a high voltage charge, harmless to humans but destructive to electronic systems. EMP effects are maximized at high altitude. However thermal-light pulse can produce flash blindness, retinal burn, and fire whilst the airburst can cause severe skin burns. (B) A nuclear detonation produces a shockwave resulting from a rise in atmospheric pressure and dynamic overpressure sufficient to destroy concrete structures. Blast effects were generally used by military planners to calculate casualty rates in a nuclear attack: It was estimated that 50 percent living in a five mile radius of a one-mgt airburst would be killed or wounded by blast effects. (C) Nuclear reactions in the initial nuclear detonation or the fallout can cause radiation poisoning, as irradiated debris is picked up by the nuclear fireball and lofted into the atmosphere. A dirty bomb uses chemical high-explosive to disperse radioactive material, relying on radiation to produce a lethal effect. Panic set off by even a limited dispersion of radioactive material might be more costly in terms of the disruption it causes than actual casualties or damage to property produced by a dirty bomb detonation; some observers believe that the blast itself causes the greatest amount of damage. (D) All of the above \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best describes commercial liberalism?\n(A) Commercial liberalism is the newest and most important faction of liberalism; it advocates socialist economic principles in order to address inequalities in the distribution of wealth that threaten societal and regime security. (B) Commercial liberalism is based on the idea that free-trade directly undermines the power of the state, and argues that the market should be regulated where possible by state actors. One flaw of commercial liberalism is that it reduces cooperation and can thus increase conflict between states. (C) Commercial liberalism is probably the oldest faction of liberalism; advocating free trade as the free movement of goods and capital, it purports that the most rapid and efficient production of wealth occurs when governments do not restrict the economic activity of private actors and the free market. (D) Commercial liberalism advocates the restraint of private enterprise and non-governmental activity in the economic sphere, arguing that interference will hinder economic prosperity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nSecurity studies can be interpreted as an imperial field of knowledge in which of the following ways?\n(A) Security studies emerged in relation to the interests of the USA and Britain following the Second World War. (B) Security studies adopts a perspective which postcolonial scholars refer to as 'the colonizer's view of the world'. (C) Security studies was originally defined by the power of the USA and Britain at a time when they actively supported colonial and imperial relations in the global south. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat do critics fear would be the result of granting rights of humanitarian intervention?\n(A) An abuse of this power in order to wage state-interested wars. (B) A depletion of military resources pursuing wars on ethical grounds, leading to a loss of military security. (C) Whilst some states have proven their ability to conduct 'just' wars in order to protect sound values of democracy and neoliberalism, not all states would use force to pursue such globally beneficial ends. (D) A lack of implementation of these rights by state actors, leading to a failure to address human rights abuses. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways did the Human Development Report, published by the United Nations Development Program in 1994, challenge the traditional security paradigm?\n(A) The report outlined seven areas or components of human security that policymakers should henceforth devote greater political attention and capital to: economic security, food security, health security, environmental security, personal security, community security, and political security. (B) The report highlighted the considerable burden that infectious diseases continue to pose in the developing world-including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. (C) The report advocates a framework of human security analysis that aims to redress the perceived imbalance in security thinking that has been predominant in traditional security studies. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might we understand the terms gender and gender security?\n(A) Gender security is essentially an extension of the way in which we conceptualize the international political system. The analysis of gender security relations has only been made possible by the expansion of the traditional military definition of security in which national security in anarchical international society was the exclusive province of the male. (B) To study gender security is to focus on the role of adult women in modern warfare, including industries related to warfare, and their inclusion or exclusion from combat roles. (C) The issue of gender and security is understood as the practical conceptualization of ways in which women have a role in security related issues, and their relative inclusion and exclusion in military conflict and militarization. (D) The study of gender and of gender security issues is a complex task, and both terms elude a uniform definition. The concept of gender security broadens terms of security beyond the military sector to also include 'human security'. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following best describes what is meant by security in the contemporary world, according to the field of Security Studies?\n(A) 'A nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged, to maintain them by victory in such a war.' Lippman, W. (B) 'Security itself is a relative freedom from war, coupled with a relatively high expectation that defeat will not be a consequence of any war that should occur.' Bellamy, M. (C) 'Emancipation is the freeing of people (as individuals and groups) from the physical and human constraints which stop them carrying out what they would freely choose to do . . . Security and emancipation are two sides of the same coin. Emancipation, not power or order, produces true security. Emancipation, theoretically, is security.' Booth, K. (D) None of the above \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these is an effective way of securing against cyber threats?\n(A) Complete eradication of threats. (B) Ensure that the severity of cyber war as a threat is recognised, and that instances of cyber warfare are identified, publicised, and acted upon immediately. (C) All of these options. (D) Acceptance that there can be no absolute security, instead design resilient IT systems and build international cooperation and information exchange in order to reduce threat and increase resilience. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following are trends to emerge in the global defence trade since the end of the Cold War?\n(A) A growing effort by governments to prevent the spread of weapons, especially of WMDs. (B) A growth in volume of the arms trade. (C) A change in the nature of the defence trade, linked to the changing nature of conflict. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn theorising the Responsibility to Protect, fundamental questions are raised about the nature of state sovereignty. Regarding this tension between R2P and notions of sovereignty, which of the following is not an accurate statement?\n(A) In order to legitimise the inter-state interventions required by R2P, Westphalian notions of sovereignty are invoked, specifically the idea that intervention is required to assure international security. (B) In order to transcend the intervention-vs.-sovereignty debate, R2P seeks a new definition of sovereignty. (C) In order to facilitate the deployment of effective humanitarian intervention, the R2P approach redefines the traditional Westphalian conception of sovereignty. (D) The notion conceptualised by the R2P approach is of a sovereignty that is intrinsically linked with responsibilities and the duty to protect the interests of citizens. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways might international measures be employed? Are they a help or a hindrance?\n(A) Diplomacy cannot achieve agreements among small groups of nations where global agreements have failed. Global endorsement is required to legitimize the process, providing greater cooperation, agreements and great power backing. Failure to attain global consensus on what terrorism is will result in disparities between states' counterterrorism methods which will severely reduce the scope of employing multi-level measures in a consistent and cohesive fashion, and may afford some terrorist groups the opportunity to seek refuge in states whose domestic laws are weaker. (B) A great deal of international diplomacy has involved attempts to define terrorism so that all countries could take steps to eradicate it. However, these efforts have largely faltered: countries often support or sympathize with dissidents who use violence against repressive governments; governments in developing countries have wanted to avoid anti-colonial struggles being labelled as terrorism; and countries want to retain a degree of flexibility regarding extradition and punishment of political dissidents. (C) Intelligence agencies are highly centralized, organized structures that operate at a maximum functional level within their domestic context. There is no reason to presume that collaboration would enhance their ability to contribute to the prevention of terrorism. The multi-agency approach would also broaden the scope for potential errors, miscommunication, and intelligence failures. (D) Multi-partner initiatives to support the reforms necessary for the prevention of terrorism have proved ineffective. Sanctions against countries that provide a territorial base for terrorism may be misplaced, having negligible effects on the terrorist organizations themselves. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nAccording to Krause and Williams, what agenda would most likely attract scholars to the 'broad church' of security studies?\n(A) To question the referent object, to question the traditional conception of military security as paramount to the state, and to change the way in which security is studied. (B) To address security from a positivist perspective, challenging the dominance of traditional security paradigms, and shifting academic attention to the individual as a referent point. (C) To question the dominance of liberalism and realism in the international system, to apply critical knowledge to the security dilemma faced by states and to redress the power imbalances that lead to intra-state conflict. (D) To account for all possible referent objects and expand the definition of security so far as to allow for a broadening of the school to encompass any agent that threatens those referent objects. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nAccording to George and Simons, what factors influence the outcomes of an act of coercive diplomacy?\n(A) Global strategic environment; type of provocation; image of war. (B) Unilateral or coalitional coercive diplomacy; isolation of the adversary; clarity of objective; strength of motivation and asymmetry of motivation. (C) Sense of urgency; strong leadership; domestic support; international support; opponents fear of unacceptable escalation; clarity concerning the precise terms of settlement. (D) All of these options. George and Simons distinguish between contextual variables and conditions favouring success, and the idea that they should be used by decisionmakers at different stages in the policymaking process. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the significance of anarchy to the realist explanation of international politics?\n(A) Anarchy means that the state exists as part of society being indistinguishable from national government and the domestic character of the state. (B) Anarchy refers to the lack of over-arching power in the international system - there is no controlling power beyond the multiple states. In the absence of such authority, states have their own agenda for achieving security, and can determine their own goals and behaviour. (C) Anarchy means that there is little continuity in a government's foreign policy over time. Leaders come and go and their foreign policy changes, which is reflective of different preoccupations and ideologies. (D) Anarchy means that the structure of the international system is distinctive because states have a strong sense that they are part of a larger entity in international politics with overarching interests and goals, making association unlimited and important. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following ideas have become mainstreamed within human security since the Human Development Report?\n(A) Limiting security analysis to military engagement is too restrictive. (B) Security is a contestable concept. (C) Focusing security only on violent conflicts is too restrictive. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the statements below is not one of the eight themes of post-Marxist critical security theory identified by Ken Booth as being important to critical security theory?\n(A) All knowledge is a social process. (B) The test of theory is emancipation. (C) Human society is a constant and unchanging phenomenon. (D) Human society is its own invention. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best defines the term 'international regime' in relation to liberalism?\n(A) The term international regime refers to the governmental or political apparatus that defines the state within the international system. (B) The term refers to a set of formal or informal principles to which governmental actors subscribe in their decision-making on a particular subject. (C) International regimes are independent bodies established by a collaboration of governmental and non-state actors to oversee international decision-making processes. (D) International regimes are also known as international organisations and play a fundamental role as lobbyists, advocating the views of interest groups to state actors. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow can we define energy security?\n(A) To achieve energy security is to ensure that there are currently sufficient energy resources to sustain the current consumption and demand for energy across the globe. (B) Energy security refers to the ability of the current energy supplies to meet the demands of state military consumption, placing the military at the core of the security paradigm. (C) To achieve energy security is to secure the supply of energy that is needed in the current context and in the future, with regards to foreseeable changes in demand where relevant. (D) Energy security refers to the ability of individuals, economic and non-state actors to access the energy required for sustaining their growth and development. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements best describes the characteristics of a weak state?\n(A) The most important characteristics of weak states are their frequent inability to establish and maintain a monopoly of control over the instruments of violence. Even within states with well developed coercive power they do not always retain absolute loyalty and are faced with a real possibility of military intervention. Whilst armed forces are ill-equipped, poorly managed and prone to factional divisions, social actors are powerful enough to resist governance. Therefore, monopoly over the instruments of violence is infrequent. (B) Weak states possess high levels of social-political cohesion which is correlated to the hegemonic enforcement idea of the regime, which in turn becomes accepted to the point of being legitimized as the social norm. (C) Weak states have a monopoly on the instruments of violence and have the coercive capability to force compliance even when social actors attempt to resist. The regimes lack popular legitimacy, the integrity of the regime's survival is consolidated by power resulting in the naturalization of violence within society. (D) Weak states do not utilize coercive capabilities in normal policy. State institutions typically have a developed bureaucracy which legitimizes the regime's ability to rule. Paradoxically, however, the more a weak state exercises its coercive power the more it reinforces its infrastructural power but reduces its ability to rule. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is distinguishable about security studies theory?\n(A) Security studies theory refers to the historical systematic distinction between strategic studies and security studies and the interrelation between general International Relations (IR) theory, security studies, and security theory. (B) The centre of the security studies debate has been to give form to policy questions - strategy, economy of defence, decision making - and to the systematic division of labour that has governed those distinctions. (C) Security theory is a specific subset of security studies and one whose development has gone through distinctive phases and divided more strongly than comparable fields, often without mutual recognition. (D) Security debates structured scholarship centred on offensive versus defensive realism, the relative importance of ideational variables and the role of power and institutions in orders and empires. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow does the preoccupation with human rights affect the human rights orientated school of liberalism?\n(A) Modern human rights oriented liberalism is concerned with self-determination. (B) Human rights orientated liberalism will advocate separatism where conflict and bloodshed seem inevitable without it. (C) Human rights orientated liberalism is particularly focused on persons subject to economic, sexual, gender, religious, and political persecution, discrimination, or deprivation. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat would be the policy implications of a hierarchical vision of TNC?\n(A) Hierarchical forms of transnational criminal activity are primarily territorially affiliated to a particular state / ethnic-cultural group and have limited transnational potential. (B) The hierarchical analysts believe that generally there has been a tendency of officials to have over-inflated the estimation of the levels of violence and wealth generated by their activities. If the wealth is not as great as is widely believed, their threat to the licit economy is vastly reduced. (C) Hierarchical forms of organization are highly adaptable and small fluid groups enable a pronounced degree of resilience (attributable to the logic of supply rising to meet demand) against law enforcement efforts confined to rigid ranking of cooperation. (D) Hierarchical groups pose a serious degree of harm by their profit-driven crimes under centralized leadership. Targeting the proceeds or leadership would therefore produce a reduction in their threat on the legitimate economy. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat role does the concept of 'human security' have in our understanding of security studies?\n(A) Human security as a concept has struggled to gain recognition amongst scholars of security studies, or in the policy-making community. There is a general failure to recognise the political and academic value of human security as a concept. (B) The concept of human security gained increasing currency in the mid-1990s, serving to highlight critical issues. In particular, the study of human society has focuses on the problem of intra-state violence, which has become the dominant issue for post-Cold War security studies. (C) The concept of human security does not challenge traditional state-centric arguments in so far as these concern the protection of the state from external military violence. However, it does show that state-centric realism is insufficient because it does not address the security of people within states. (D) Human security has become the dominant concept in understanding contemporary security studies. After the end of the Cold War, the state-centric security paradigm was made irrelevant and today there is a universal understanding that human beings and individuals within states should be the focal point of security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the specific elements of a comprehensive national defence trade control system?\n(A) Governments should include in their arms trade rules, laws, penalties for their violation. (B) Governments should ensure that weapons producers mark their defence items with a unique marking. (C) Government police and military forces should establish appropriate weapons stockpile security measures and national authorities should collect and destroy old, outdated, and excess weaponry. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following are Schelling's necessary conditions for compellence success?\n(A) The coercer must not unduly threaten the adversary; threat must be credible; adversary must recognise the legitimacy of coercer's demands; coercer must assure adversary that compliance will not lead to future demands; conflict must not be perceived as a zero-sum game. (B) Conveyed threat must be sufficient so as to make non-compliance unbearable; threat must be credible; adversary must be given sufficient time to comply with demand; coercer must assure adversary that compliance will not lead to future demands; conflict must not be perceived as a zero-sum game. (C) Conveyed threat must be sufficient so as to make non-compliance unbearable; threat must be credible; adversary must be given sufficient time to comply with demand; coercer must not use fear to coerce the adversary. (D) Conveyed threat must be sufficient so as to make non-compliance unbearable; threat must not include military intervention; adversary must be given sufficient time to comply with demand; coercer must assure adversary that compliance will not lead to future demands; conflict must not be perceived as a zero-sum game. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following characteristics describe 'Category B' agents, as defined by the US Centers for Disease Control?\n(A) Category B agents are those that present little to no risk or morbidity within infected populations, but can have detrimental effects on the ability of a group to perform physical tasks. (B) Unlike Category A agents, B agents refer to emerging security threats which have the potential to be utilised as biological weapons after further development. (C) Category B agents include food and water security threats, with moderate morbidity rates. (D) Category B agents are characterised by high mortality rates and include agents which are difficult to treat medically. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhen did the cyber-security discourse emerge? (When did politicians, academics, and other agents begin to talk seriously about cyber-security?)\n(A) 1970s (B) 1990s (C) 1960s (D) 1980s \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn the context of military security, which of the following is not an obvious benefit of adopting a 'critical' theoretical approach?\n(A) A more critical approach to military security studies will allow the inclusion or adoption of non-realist paradigms, such as social constructivism. (B) Critical analysis of military security will draw attention back to traditional conceptions of the state-centric paradigm which have been neglected in recent years, with states favouring human security and other non-traditional approaches instead. (C) By implementing a critical analysis we can recognise that traditional conceptions of military security are no longer always salient and may need to be reconsidered. (D) A critical approach would recognise the changing ontology of security in the real world. Such changes are evident in the new ways in which war has been conducted in the 20th and 21st century. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nConsidering Wendt's three cultures of anarchy; which of the following defines the Lockean culture?\n(A) A culture that exists some of the time, but not all the time, in which no self-restraint exists and actors cannot rely on each other for help. (B) A culture characterized by rivalry, which has dominated since the beginning of the modern system of states and in which actors regard each other as rivals but exercise some restraint in violence. (C) A culture characterized by friendship, where force and violence is eschewed in favour of cooperation in matters of security. (D) A culture within which survival relies on military power, security dilemmas abound, and security is a zero-sum game. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways does the idea of 'victim' impact on the way in which gender security is regarded?\n(A) Woman as 'victim' is, and continues to be, an important narrative of war stories. In 1990 an estimated 90% of war casualties were civilian, the majority women and children. Reports that women are the primary casualties of war has contributed to the enduring perception that women are dependent on men for protection, and that men are responsible for sacrificing their own well bring for the protection of women and the state (often confused with one another through propaganda and imagery). (B) The role of men as intrinsically heroic has been marginalized as the traumas of war, desertion, and conscription become more apparent. When imagining victims, there is no longer a gender divide. Instead, there is a growing perception that those who fight are courageous and heroic, whilst those who do not take on female characteristics. (C) Increasing awareness regarding the barbaric nature of warfare and the problems of trauma in war has led to a reversal in the belief that the idea of war is a natural place for males. In contemporary societies across the globe, men are regarded as the victims of gender stereotypes that coerce them into violent behaviour as 'protectors' or aggressors on behalf of the state. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways is gender applicable to the field of Security Studies?\n(A) Women and children are dependent on the state for protection and Security Studies should include them and account for their needs. (B) Biological differences between men and women determine their suitability for different roles in protecting the state or referent object. (C) Gender is not applicable to Security Studies - to create a 'gender neutral' security arena we should disregard gender issues. (D) Social constructions of 'masculinity' or 'femininity' determine the roles in which men and women are expected to act, by considering these artificial roles we can ask important questions about the ways in which we conceptualize security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the function of sanctions?\n(A) As a means of exerting economic power to advance peace and freedom. (B) To end economic support for morally unacceptable regimes. (C) To isolate dangerous regimes and weaken threats to regional or global security. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nGiven current patterns of industrial development, what are the future prospects for energy security?\n(A) Whilst energy consumption is correlated to levels of industrialisation, developed states of the North continue to increase their demands for energy. This is balanced by a lesser demand from states in the South; due to their lack of industrialisation their demands on energy are forecast to remain low. (B) Energy demand in the industrialised states has peaked in recent years and data indicates that consumption levels in the North have become constant and are not likely to increase. (C) Whilst forecasts predict that energy consumption in the industrialised states of the North will continue to increase, the major increase in demand will come from the developing states of the South, posing major challenges to global energy security. (D) Although demand from developing states is set to increase the global consumption of dwindling energy resources, technological advancements in alternative energy sources, coupled with comprehensive understanding of current resource levels and access, will secure energy supply in the foreseeable future. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is not a correct definition?\n(A) Acting subjects: who or what is acting to produce security or insecurity. (B) Substantive content: what being secure looks like and what conditions must exist for us to be able to say we are secure. (C) Referent object: whom or what we act to make secure. (D) Objective security: when a matter is objectively considered a security issue, regardless of interpretation. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat external strategies do elites employ?\n(A) An increasingly popular means of bolstering regime security has been the expulsion of foreign workers and non-ethnic nationals and restricting borders to refugees and migrants. (B) Weak states seek to avoid alliances with powerful states because alliances and assistance frequently are conditional on democratization and risk penalties if they are not met. (C) An increasingly prevalent strategy among weak states has been the employment of private military or security companies and foreign mercenaries as force multipliers to secure the weak state from internal threats. (D) Weak states may sometimes militarily engage in action to bolster their regional position and to mobilize internal support against the construction of an imagined external threat. This frequently coincides with economic or social crises as a policy of distraction. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat problems has the post-Cold War security literature revealed on women, war, development, and security?\n(A) Technological advancements have to some extent rendered the battlefield gender-neutral. 'Virtual' warfare has resolved the historical tension between the citizen and the state security apparatus; if actual combat could be avoided then male and female soldiers could wage war on equal terms. However, technological advancement remains unequal and so the gender situation is different in different contexts, depending on development and security issues. (B) The technological capacity to wage war with minimal civilian costs has abolished the threat of physical and biological gender victimization. The contemporary gender divide is structured on 'soft' issues associated with socio-economic hardship. (C) Conflict in warfare and the gender divide between men and women is centred on the historical contract between the individual and the state. The 'right to fight' debate has equal meaning and saliency across the globe, and is universally applicable in all situations. (D) Nuclear armaments and the threat of mass destruction have rendered the battlefield gender neutral in terms of its destructive capabilities. Whilst historically conventional warfare was conducted on the battlefield in which women were particularly vulnerable to violence, and post-conflict sexual violence, these threats no longer exist. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might weapons belonging to state military or police forces arrive on the illicit arms market?\n(A) States are strong enough to ensure that their weaponry is kept within their control and not traded illegally. (B) There is no evidence to suggest that state-owned weapons could be traded illicitly as part of the black or grey arms markets. (C) Illegal trading by states is the primary way in which weapons purchased legally might end up on the illegal arms market. (D) Looting and theft, especially where corruption is endemic, states are weak, and weapons stockpiles are not properly secured. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways has human security been significant as a concept?\n(A) Human security has put particular emphasis on the nexus between conflict and development, a concept which is very useful. The significance of the nexus between development and conflict is not just that it raises ethical issues about human suffering and inequalities, but that its frequent outcomes, so called state future, has dire local, regional, and global effects. (B) From a normative perspective, the concept serves to highlight good global norms. Human security often serves as an umbrella norm. Developing good global norms is not only important for moral and ethical reasons but also because they serve to enhance state and international society. (C) The development of the human security concept highlights the view that the threats to humans as well as to state entities are changing and increasing. These changes have spurred debates about the meaning of security and the arguments for its broadening and deepening. Like internal violence, these transnational issues have serious local, regional, and global effects. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements is not accurately applied to Critical Security Studies?\n(A) The referent object can be objectively studied and should be considered accordingly. (B) The security analyst and the object of the security should not be regarded as separate. (C) Critical Security Studies is a post-positivist approach. (D) Critical Security studies questions the epistemological principles of other approaches in Security Studies. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nCan armed forces be linked to environmental security and in what ways?\n(A) Military warfare enhances the ability of people's access to resources and to aid the development in ecologically sustainable ways; it can secure access routes and rights that would otherwise be denied; rebuild infrastructure and equitable access of resources; benefit the management of environmental problems; and also to bolster social institutions and cohesion. (B) It is when considering the military and the security institutions that some of the greatest contradictions with the concept of environmental security are raised. War impacts negatively on the sustainable growth of the nation but armed forces may be required to manage the effects. (C) Stronger militaries and technological advances have reduced the negative impact on the environment having greater impact with fewer materials, whilst the spectre of mass destruction warfare has been reduced with the ending of the Cold War. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhen considering economic tools for security policy, which of the following is the odd one out?\n(A) Withdrawal of economic trade rights with the domestic market. (B) Export controls protecting technological advantage and further foreign policy objectives. (C) Control of munitions and arms sales. (D) Import restrictions to protect a domestic market from foreign goods. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the market vision of transnational organized crime?\n(A) Market place scholars argue that transnational crime operates like a capitalist marketplace in its scope and extensity of operations. Criminal organizations are thus very resilient to law enforcement efforts by virtue of their sheer size. Of comparative difference is the development of highly sophisticated networks of collaboration between criminal groups that has enabled them to survive under the conditions of the competitive logic of the marketplace. (B) Market analysts argue that the criminal alliances create organizations with a high level of wealth and power that far underestimates what government and official estimates attribute to them. Within this perspective the threat to the licit economy is vastly increased. (C) Market analysts believe that white-collar and corporate crimes contribute significantly to undermining the licit market. Those organized crime groups are more prone to use violence and corruption than ordinary criminal groups as a result of the extent of profits invested in their activities. (D) Market analysts claim that organized crime is highly disorganized, and resembles more a market for illicit goods and services than an organization. Proponents of this view minimize the threat posed by organized criminals to states and societies. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat impact did the end of the Cold War have on warlord politics?\n(A) Within the context of state collapse, elites deliberately engender disorder for the pursuit of commercial activities and the exploitation of neo-liberal globalized shadow markets which would not otherwise be permissible in normal conditions. Warlord politics represented a new form of regime security forced upon weak state elites. (B) Warlord politics represented the entrenchment of traditional patterns of redistributive networks within society but maintained by alternative political sources. Assistance derived from superpowers was superseded by US hegemonic endorsement at the end of the Cold War. (C) Warlord politics in response to the rapid global changes inaugurated by the end of the Cold War and by globalization, was a temporary aberration in the normal function of the state and was reflective of the immediate need to secure infrastructural survival. (D) Warlord politics was a new phenomenon which represented the opportunistic exploitation of hollowed out state institutions and fragmented armed forces. Commercial activities accumulated in a shadow economy facilitated by the end of the Cold War, not of strategic design. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways might the effects of chemical weapons affect the decision to deploy them against a target?\n(A) Chemical weapons are a highly complicated means to conduct an assault. The unpredictability of chemicals (the degree of evaporation, stability and concentration) frequently proves to be incommensurate with political objectives. (B) Analysts are concerned with the potential ease of chemical manufacturing. Weapons could be quickly and effectively deployed being light, concealable and rapidly deployed. Most weapons can be delivered in a line source for example a crop duster or administered through an aerosol. Dispersal in areas of poor ventilation or closed venues where people are in close proximity could have potentially catastrophic effects. (C) Chemical weapons have the potential to cause mass casualties. Moderate exposure to chemicals produces serious side effects and would generate serious casualties if weaponized. (D) Wind, temperature and terrain can affect the lethality and persistence of an agent and is dependent on the extensity and degree of contact with the target. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relationship between war, military security, and security studies?\n(A) War is best regarded as a rational instrument of political policy; it is a continuation of politics by other means. (B) War is best regarded as a social aberration, and is the result of catastrophic failure in social cohesion. (C) War is an anarchic state in which state or other actors must draw upon exceptional (military) means in order to ensure the protection of their interests. (D) War is a state of mass conflict which is inflicted upon state actors as a result of their failure to effectively control the behaviour of their population. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow has coercive diplomacy featured in contemporary security studies?\n(A) Compellence and coercion through diplomacy are linked with the 'pre-emptive use of force'. (B) Coercive diplomacy is a softly-softly approach to international power bargaining, that has been side-lined in recent years. (C) Deterrence as a strategy has dominated contemporary instances of coercive diplomacy. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways is defining coercive diplomacy success problematic?\n(A) Isolation of the effect that the threat of force or the limited use of force, in a given case is dependent on the sufficiency of the \"stick\" for success. The question to ask is whether the stick employed was sufficient to produce compliance. (B) Success is an independent function from the amount of coercion required to produce compliance. Ideally, coercion should be required to solve all disputes. If the threshold from persuasion to coercion is crossed, the degree of success is equated to the production intended outcome: to stop or undo an action. (C) In protracted diplomatic affairs involving a series of inconclusive exchanges which results in tactical/temporary successes followed by new acts of non-compliance, the production of the intended outcome (compliance and ceasing of actions) is regarded as a success from a policy goal perspective. (D) Coercive diplomacy success resulting from the use of threats and sanctions (inducements may, but need not, be employed) are classified as cheap successes. Successes resulting from the use of limited force count as costly ones. Compliance can only be considered a success if the outcome is lasting. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways, if any, can the environment be considered a security concern?\n(A) Environmental security entails a consideration of the security of the global environment, as well as its nested sub-systems and social systems beyond the boundaries of the nation state. (B) Environmental security is a critical security project in that it questions who and what is to be secured and from what threat by orthodox security policies, or whether linkages between environmental, security and development issues can be made. (C) Environmental security is a practical endeavour to assess how environmental change causes violent conflict within and between countries, and the ways in which environmental security can undermine national security. (D) All of these options. The environment is both an object to be secured and a source of risk, although it may mean different things to different people. Whilst deepening the concept of security it has both critical and practical dimensions although the utility of the concept is contested. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best describes the liberalist attitude towards international organisations?\n(A) Liberalism holds that international organisations can enhance national and international security. It advocates the inclusion of non-governmental organisations and other actors to encourage cooperation and build communities. (B) The liberalist advocacy of cooperation as enhancing security is undermined by the failure of international organisations such as the league of nations in preventing global conflicts. (C) Under liberalism's different schools of thought, there is a general consensus that the involvement of international organisations in the political system ultimately undermines security by disempowering the state as a unitary actor. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the relationship between culture and social constructivism?\n(A) All of the below. (B) Culture is the product of shared identity and interaction, although it is important in understanding the dynamics of social identity, its wider reference to security studies is largely disputed. (C) Social constructivism does not regard culture as being an important feature to study, instead focusing on individualistic aspects of identity such as personal interests and ambition. (D) Culture is commonly regarded as a set of practices that give meaning to shared experiences and actions; it can impact on how states see security and is crucial in constructing the values and rules that inform identity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is an impact of common structural adjustment policies on the poor?\n(A) Cost of imports soar, including vital resources such as imported medicines. Basic food prices rise, putting even greater pressure on already stretched household budgets. (B) Reduced health, education, and social welfare spending and the introduction of cost-recovery and user-fees put healthcare and education beyond the reach of many ordinary people. Public sector redundancies and salary freezes lead to fewer teachers and doctors. (C) Massive redundancies and increased unemployment with no social security provision push families deeper into poverty. Farmers and small companies can no longer afford to borrow money and are forced to reduce production or go out of business. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might the diversity of the current global international system impact upon the case for humanitarian intervention?\n(A) The global political arena is dominated by a paradigm of human-security which promotes human security based on core assumptions of what it is to be secure, and which transcend cultural or political diversity. (B) Despite the inclusion of a diverse range of political actors, whose cultural, ethical and religious values are often at odds with one another, there exists a general consensus amongst all states that humanitarian intervention is sometimes justified. (C) The diversity of states, in terms of their cultural, political, ideological and religious values, results in a global system characterised by radical disagreements on how states should govern themselves and each other. In order to protect this diversity there exist rules of engagement that prohibit interference in the sovereign state, such as humanitarian intervention. (D) Within the contemporary global arena there are a number of radically different views on how states should govern themselves and each other. In order to protect this diversity, there exists a need for unifying principles of humanitarian intervention. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following are economic objectives of IMF adjustment policies?\n(A) Devaluation to promote exports and reduce demand for imports by raising their prices. (B) Tighter monetary and credit policies with higher interest rates to reduce overall demand, and thus demand for imports; to limit or reduce the rate of inflation. (C) All of these options. (D) Public spending cuts to reduce the budget deficit and slow the growth of government debt. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nTo what extent have biological agents been weaponized?\n(A) Military professionals believe that the majority of biological agents can be sufficiently stable in their effects to be used as a weapon. Resource requirements would be minimal as fermenters used to make vaccines could be converted for military production and relatively small quantities of the agent are required to produce highly lethal effects, making them an efficient and effective weapon. (B) Construction of the means to transmit biological weapons in warfare has focused on the use of vectors, for example lice, fleas, or mosquitoes, as a mode of transmission as a military weapon. These are favoured because the target would find it difficult to contain the source of the outbreak, placing the infrastructure of the target country under strain. (C) Biological agents comprise bacteria, viral, and toxin agents. However, not every disease provides the basis for an effective biological weapon. An agent's storage, delivery, mode of transmission and its very resilience can shape its effects on a target population. (D) Inoculation programs against naturally occurring disease have eradicated the potential for viral agents to cause a global pandemic. Vaccination capabilities have undermined calls for the weaponization of viral agents made by some military strategists as most public health authorities have in place programs to deal with a possible outbreak. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nAccording to Buzan, Waever, and de Wilde, in what ways does the Copenhagen School's approach to Security Studies differ from that of Critical Security Studies?\n(A) The theory and knowledge that underpin each approach are fundamentally at odds with one another. Whilst Critical Security Studies is post-structuralist and constructivist, the Copenhagen School is based on an objectivist epistemology. (B) Whilst Critical Security Studies regards security to be a social construction, based on the changeable ideas that form human society, the Copenhagen school disregards this epistemological approach and instead considers security as an issue to be studied objectively from a positivist approach. (C) Critical Security Studies regards security to be an empirically definable state, which should be studied from a positivist approach. However, the Copenhagen School views security as a socially constructed entity that denies the validity of an objective approach. (D) Neither Critical Security Studies nor the Copenhagen School account for the changing nature of society and its impact on the construction of security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are Fission Nuclear Weapons?\n(A) Fission nuclear weapons are gun-type devices that require a relatively small amount of fissile uranium-235 material to produce a comparatively large explosion because mass and energy becomes interchangeable in the barrel. Implosion devices however are unable to sustain the reaction; the neutron generator is unable to set off the interchange being destroyed in the explosion. (B) Implosion fissure devices are constructed with relative ease because unlike the gun-type fissure device it uses high-explosive shaped lenses to compress the fissile material to critical tolerance. Detonation is highly volatile with a high potential of \"going critical\". (C) Fissile weapons are produced by the rapid rearrangement of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen in a chamber, striking each other at high velocities the friction sparking a chemical explosion. (D) Gun-type devices are of rugged design using two sub-critical masses fired down a barrel at very high velocities with a high probability of producing a reaction. Implosion devices are more complex, requiring the assembling of shaped charges to compress the fissile material to critical tolerances, and are detonated with more than split-second timing. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhy is HIV/AIDS considered to be a non-traditional security issue?\n(A) HIV/AIDS is a newly emergent disease that did not exist until relatively late in the 20th century. (B) Ill health can threaten the state indirectly, but can also be a threat to other referent objects such as the economy. (C) The overwhelming scale of HIV/AIDS requires a new approach in order to theorize its impact on security. (D) None of the above - HIV/AIDS is better defined as a traditional security issue. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is an important reason to advocate the process of desecuritization?\n(A) To prevent the erosion of established civil liberties through the removal of special rights and the cessation of extraordinary measures. (B) To prevent stagnation of the security realm and facilitate the recognition and securitization of new or more urgent existential threats. (C) To prevent the securitization of irrelevant threats and to challenge the legitimacy of currently securitized threats. (D) To ensure that securitizing actors conceptualise security threats in terms of those that can be addressed using extraordinary measures. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements best describes the process of 'medicalization'?\n(A) The term 'medicalization' refers to the process whereby a medical or health issue becomes securitized. (B) 'Medicalization' is the outcome of security dialogue that discusses threats or risks to national security in terms of medical language. (C) An issue is said to be 'medicalized' when it is dismissed as a security threat, instead deemed to be a medical issue concerning health as mutually exclusive from security. (D) The perceived 'medicalization' of societies occurs when social issues are increasingly considered and responded to as medical problems. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow has the conceptualization of health as a security issue changed during the twentieth century?\n(A) Health has long been regarded as a security issue. During the 20th century there was an increasingly sense of panic about the potential damage of a serious pandemic disease outbreak in the newly globalised world. Medical advances and a series of successful contained outbreaks have largely allayed these fears. (B) Since the early 20th century there has been growing recognition of the success in medical and technological advancements that have the ability to keep infectious diseases at bay in the modern population. (C) Pandemic disease is a relatively new threat to security, emerging only in the early 19th century. Therefore, human populations are still formulating and testing new ways of controlling outbreaks and minimising their impact on security. (D) During the 20th century, security analysts were predisposed to focus on the potential threat of nuclear confrontation and military combat. Since the reduction in these threats, there has emerged a series of pandemic diseases, and a sense of growing unease at the future impact of more serious outbreaks in an increasingly globalised population. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich statement best describes the circumstances that have shaped the emergence of peace studies as a field of research?\n(A) Peace studies developed after the Second World War as a response to the failure of International Relations to prevent global conflict following World War I. Initially, the field was conditioned by the nuclear arms race and East-West divide that characterised the Cold War, but was quick to embrace environmental concerns and the issues surrounding the North-South wealth/poverty divide. (B) Peace studies developed as a discipline following the Cold War when the security studies paradigm shifted to include areas of concern such as environmental, societal and economic security. As a field of research peace studies adopts a Euro-centric approach to security and has thus been defined by developments within the West and wealthier nations. (C) Peace studies emerged as a response to the developing nuclear capability of states during the Cold War. The aim of peace studies is to secure the state as a referent object and does this through the study of weapons accumulation. The approach is particularly focused on the nuclear arms race between East and West. (D) Developed as a response to World War I, peace studies focuses on disparities in wealth and resource allocation that exist within the global system, with the aim of promoting peace through the equal distribution of these resources. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements is commonly regarded as a tangible benefit of the securitization process?\n(A) Securitizing injects urgency into an issue and leads to a sustained mobilization of political support and deployment of resources. (B) Securitization encourages more efficient handling of complex problems. (C) Securitization mobilizes popular support for policies in specific areas by calling them security relevant and encourages the allocation of more resources. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways might a society be threatened?\n(A) Societies are threatened when their linguistic heritage and traditions are under attack. The inability to use and develop traditional language signifies the destruction of a society. (B) Threats to societal security exist when a society regards its collective identity as being under question. Such circumstances include the suppression of expression and interference with a society's ability to reproduce itself across generations. (C) Military threats to societies in the form of external aggression, mainly through de-population policies with the intent of preventing collective identities from being reproduced over generations. (D) Migratory influxes into a host receiving state results in a shift in the composition of the population resulting in horizontal competition or vertical competition. This is not an outright threat to survival but part of wider uncontrollable processes of evolutionary identity. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of these statements best defines the concepts of corporate and social identity?\n(A) An actor can have only one social identity, and this forms the basis for developing other identities. In contrast, an actor may have multiple corporate identities which vary in importance. (B) Corporate identity refers to the intrinsic, self-realized identity of an actor. Social identity refers to 'sets of meanings that an actor attributes to itself while taking the perspective of others'. Actors can have multiple social identities. (C) Corporate identity is a type of social identity that is constructed through the interaction of an actor with others within the international system. (D) Social identity can also be described as 'role' identity. Like corporate identity, an actor's social identity is formed through interaction and does not exist as an intrinsic concept. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways has conflict been a concern of the environmental security agenda for strong states?\n(A) Environmental change can be a cause of war between countries, largely centred on resource scarcity interrelated with conflict. There is therefore a strong connection between environmental degradation and violence; resources as strategic goals and strategic tools may cause violence if there is inequity. (B) Population growth and its relationship to environmental degradation can lead to environmentally caused conflict. There is therefore a linear link between population growth and environmental change, and environmental change is the critical determinant in the production of violence. (C) Common findings in research organizations investigating environmental violence have failed to find quantifiable relationships between environmental and social variables and the cause of war. Analysis of aggregated data failed to establish a common causal mechanism. The extensity of possible variables being simply too vast, mitigating any definitive relationship. (D) Analysis of environmental violence research shows that there is a tendency among 'strong states' to be less prone to internal violent conflicts whereas states undergoing significant economic and political transitions are more prone to violent conflict. Environmental change is unlikely to be a cause of war but can be a contributory factor. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nThreats to IT systems can be classified in many ways; in this chapter three different categories of threat are listed. According to this classification, which of the following would be classified as a 'Failure'?\n(A) Security systems were not adequate to protect the system against attack from a hacking group, and sensitive data was lost. (B) There is a programming error in the software which causes the system to perform badly. (C) All of these options. (D) The IT system has failed due to a random unexpected event, such as a tsunami which destroys key electronic equipment. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following reasons might influence a state's decision to join an alliance such as NATO?\n(A) More powerful states may also create alliances in order to extend their protective umbrella over weaker friendly states. (B) States may seek to join an alliance if they believe that their own resources are inadequate to maintain their sovereignty and security. (C) An alliance can become attractive to states when a potential hegemonic power threatens the other states in that system. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the 'security dilemma' that faces weak states?\n(A) The inability of the state to provide stability creates a situation wherein each component of society competes to preserve its well-being thereby engendering insecurity. The condition is self-perpetuating - a semi-permanent situation of emergent anarchy because measures to secure the regime will provoke greater resistance. (B) The weak state insecurity dilemma is primarily an external condition creating a situation for the weak state similar to structural anarchy, wherein a weak state creates insecurity in the region when taking measures to improve its own regional standing. (C) The weak state insecurity dilemma emerges out of competition between each component of society to preserve and protect the longevity of their well-being and interests. However, the ruling elite remain separate from the social sphere of contestation producing a policy dilemma; use of the monopoly of instruments of violence to restore order will reduce the regime's infrastructural core. (D) Weak state insecurity dilemmas are born out of a lack of political and institutional centring with a monopoly of force. However, the engagement of armed forces to strengthen institutions may stop this process. Inability to foster 'stateness' is reversed by the use of violence. Social disquiet is a semi-permanent situation of emergent but not developed anarchy. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following does not constitute a fundamental ontological principle of social constructivism?\n(A) Normative or ideational structures are important and matter as much as, if not more than, material structures. (B) Identities are important. (C) Anarchy is an inescapable feature of the international system. (D) Agents and structures are mutually constituted. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHistorical materialism is founded on the ideas and philosophies of which theorists?\n(A) Barry Buzan and Ole Waever (B) Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau (C) Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (D) Adam Smith and Karl Marx \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat internal security policy options are available to elites?\n(A) Elites create negative inducements for non support of the regime. Redistribution as a means of denial to the power structure in the form of \"elite disenfranchisement\" which may include diversion of resources, disarmament and denial of access to commercial activity routes. (B) Lacking infrastructural capacity and wider social legitimacy, weak state elites are often forced to rely on coercive power. However, a key dilemma is that the instruments of violence can be a threat to the regime requiring the deliberate undermining of armed forces. (C) Elites attempt to foster a new politics of identity in which ethnic consciousness is superseded by ideologies orientated around the myth of the regime. (D) Weak states have cultivated international sponsorship and have initiated processes of democratic reform so as to gain popular legitimacy internally whilst bolstering its international legitimacy externally. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nAre strategies of Arms Control and Deterrence useful in cyber-security?\n(A) No, arms control does not serve any purpose outside the realm of traditional military weapons. (B) Yes, successful policies of arms control and deterrence have translated well from other security realms, such as nuclear weapons control strategies. (C) Effective deterrence requires international cooperation which is achievable in theory, but the verification required for traditional arms control strategies is impossible in cyber(ed) warfare. (D) Only arms control is unproblematic, deterrence has failed because international cooperation cannot be reached and common rules or practices cannot be established. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways does the perspective on terrorism influence the response a government will take?\n(A) Within the disease prescription, reform packages become part of the government response to reduce the appeal of the terrorist group within the population. However, reforms may encourage terrorists to continue their violent activities because they are being rewarded. Under these conditions reforms may become concessions that fuel the violence rather than a mechanism for ending it. It is also clear that reforms may not eliminate the presence of terrorism. (B) Contemporary responses to terrorism have been taken within the context of the war on terror analogy, in which the norms of retaliation and punishment prevail. Implicit within this view is the justification for pre-emptive action taken against training facilities, headquarters, sources of funding, and even the assassination of key individuals. (C) Whilst the warfare analogy presumes deterrence at times, deterrence is more central to a justice system. The extent of pre-emption available in a normal criminal context is the detention of suspects or judicial harassment. (D) All of these options. Responses to terrorist attacks vary either explicitly or implicitly, if warfare is seen as warfare, crime, or disease. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might the period of academic institutionalization be assessed?\n(A) The distinct phenomenon of strategic studies emerged as an imported American specialty. It emerged in the US and was exported to Europe. European security studies was \"theory has already been done\" kind of work. (B) The think tanks became routine producers of narrow technical problem-solving succumbing to 'hectic empiricism': the internal logic of its key contribution (deterrence) broke down. (C) Peace research developed on a parallel but separate track, and particularly the distinct critical branch was seen neither by its representatives nor by security studies as part of the latter. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways may the security dimensions of infectious disease be considered in the national security framework?\n(A) The physical health of armed forces is a paramount concern within the traditional security paradigm, and the threat of disease is exacerbated by the physical and sociological conditions under which military personal operate, particularly during combat. (B) The innate human fear of microbes makes them particularly amenable to being portrayed not just as important health issues, but as national-security threats as well. (C) Diseases that traditionally affect certain regions of the world, due to their epidemiologic nature or for socio-economic reasons, are increasingly perceived by national governments as potential threats as a result of globalisation. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in the global defence trade?\n(A) Non-governmental organisations are the primary actors in modern arms control measures. (B) Non-governmental agencies are unable to access the resources and information needed to develop effective policy or action on arms control. (C) Non-governmental groups have played a significant and effective role in developing arms control measures in recent years. (D) There is a serious lack of involvement by non-governmental actors in controlling the global defence trade. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nThe concept of R2P rests on three pillars, which of these is widely acclaimed to be the most important?\n(A) The responsibility to retaliate. (B) The responsibility to prevent. (C) The responsibility to rebuild. (D) The responsibility to react. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn the context of globalization, how can we best define the term 'development'?\n(A) The term development refers to the human condition in which there is freedom from fear and want; there are sufficient resources to sustain life and this life can exist in a state free from the threat, or perceived threat, of sudden interruption. (B) To be considered as developed, a nation must have achieved certain economic and political status within the global state system; the criterion for what constitutes a 'developed' state is thus defined by those requirements of interaction in this system. (C) Development is a means to address the inequalities that accompany neoliberal globalization. In this context, development refers to the ability of a population or community to effectively utilize resources and increase efficiency in production and distribution, promoting the more equitable distribution of income within society. (D) Development of a community refers to the ideological and ethical value systems to which its population subscribes. In the globalised international system this refers to the adoption of western liberal democratic ideology and free market economics. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following best describes Eurocentrism?\n(A) Eurocentrism is a style of analysis in which European societies are compared to non-European societies to produce an unbiased comparison of the relative merits of each. (B) Eurocentrism is a thought style in which the assessment and evaluation of non-European societies is couched in terms of the cultural assumptions and biases of Europeans. (C) Eurocentrism describes studies or scholarly work that only consider European political or economic systems. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(B)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is meant by the term 'cyber-crime'?\n(A) Any crime that uses computers to jeopardise or attempt to jeopardise national security (B) The use of computer networks to commit financial or identity fraud (C) The theft of digital information (D) Any crime that involves computers and networks \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nHow might global inequality present a threat to global security?\n(A) Human security is threatened by global inequality, because 3s of the world population do not share the benefits of globalisation. However, this inequality does not translate into political instability or involve military action. (B) Global inequality creates disenfranchised populations who, although discontent with their situation, lack the agency to rebel or protest. (C) Revolutionary uprisings are likely to occur; people of the world who have been left behind by neoliberal globalisation can become radicalised and rebel against those who have benefitted from the economic policies that have failed them. (D) Global inequality does not present a significant threat to global security. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is the future of WMD?\n(A) The viability of the CWC and BCW providing a concrete basis in international law to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is dubious. The Proliferation Security Initiative to prevent the illicit trade in materials relating to chemical and nuclear weapons is an equally piecemeal pursuit. Whilst they may serve some utility as a framework for diplomatic exchanges, they are essentially toothless bodies lacking the political will to establish an authority with the powers to police the control and use of these weapons. (B) The International Non-proliferation Regime has been rendered effectively defunct in the post-Cold War climate. State actors seeking to develop their own weapons capabilities have de-stabilized norms governing the use and control of WMD. This has been evidenced by severe splits in the body following the 1998 Indian and Pakistani nuclear testing and the withdrawal of great power support following the US Senate's decision not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (C) Contemporary concern has been pacified by the fact that WMD threat has greatly diminished with the end of the Cold War. A number of deployed Soviet (Russian) and strategic warheads and US tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from service thereby removing the threat of total war by massive nuclear exchange. (D) WMD terrorism poses a security threat that is not easily met by today's policy community or military establishments. The second strike rule is virtually obsolete because of the difficulty of locating such groups and deterrence is an unviable strategy given that objective of attacks are frequently politically, ideologically or religiously motivated. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn which ways does realism differ from social constructivism in the theorisation of identity within international relations?\n(A) Social constructivism employs theories of causality in the study of international relations, in addition to prioritising the study of identity as a socially constructed theory. In contrast, realism regards state of actor behaviour in the international system to follow an 'action-response' pattern. (B) Realism regards identity as a crucial point for consideration in international relations. Realist theory is based on the assumption that identity informs behaviour. (C) Realism is based in the notion of causality whilst social constructivism relies on theories of identity that are based in intersubjective meanings. (D) Social constructivists regard the state as an independent unit whose behaviour is shaped by the requirements of the international system, whilst realists regard state interaction as being the natural progression of identity formulation. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat is 'malware'?\n(A) A virus or worm (B) A Trojan horse (C) A hacker tool (D) A corrupted program \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nFor post-structuralists, which of the following is the most important impact of security studies?\n(A) Security studies contributes to the literature and builds greater theoretical understanding of the subject. (B) Security studies records the history of modern warfare. (C) Security studies teaches a new generation about the reality of warfare and strategy. (D) Security studies creates and perpetuates claims that shape warfare, defining legitimacy, favouring some subjects and marginalising others. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways can the different relationship between US and European security studies be explained?\n(A) The different relationship to the concept of security: in Europe the debate has stayed as part of politico-self-reflection of the scholar who 'does security;' whereas in the US, the question of the concept of security is seen at the most a necessary 'define your' terms' operation. (B) The different relationship to the exact form of knowledge that is valued. The US is more rationalist, Europe the more reflectivist. In the US security studies debate hypothesis is typically examined as cause-effect relationships, tied into general debates and with measurement of ideational variables. (C) In the US major competing explanations emphasized, on the one hand, the US's liberal hegemony, and, on the other hand, the purely power based stability of presumed unipolarity in which balancing becomes impossible. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following statements does not describe 'nations'?\n(A) Nations may be made up of different ethnic-identity groups. (B) Nations may be difficult to distinguish from societies. (C) Nations are defined by the boundaries and borders of the state. (D) Nations may contain multiple religious identity groups. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways have feminist and critical security investigations of the 1980s and 1990s expanded our understanding of gender security issues?\n(A) Investigations into the consequences of state security policies showed that women were subject to masculine dominated war policies as the likely victims as casualties of war or as post conflict targets. Women are increasingly subject to violence as a product of social circumstance. (B) Gendered consequences of security issues have not challenged international relations theory. Constructivist theories of the state were mainstreamed without undermining the ideas of state as the centre of military power, or as the highest organization of human community. (C) Feminist and critical security theory shows us that war can have gendered consequences. Recognition of those consequences has allowed us to address the way in which we think about 'male' and 'female' expectations in warfare, and has shaped the way in which we theorise, participate, and protest against those roles. (D) The literature that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s was primarily concerned with the ways in which women had served the purposes of nationalist campaigns, focusing on the biological characteristics of women as sexually reproductive beings, and with little focus on critical analysis. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat preventative security measures might a government take in defence of a potential future terrorist attack?\n(A) Prevention is normally associated with the concept of terrorism as war or crime. All governments will practice prevention (seen as repression from the terrorist perspective) by seeking to arrest or eliminate those actively involved in the violence. Security forces attack the terrorists before they strike (war) or they are arrested after the attack (crime). (B) Large terrorist organizations are hard to penetrate, being highly cohesive and centralized in structure. In both the warfare and criminal model, intelligence is obtained by two methods; firstly to elicit information from captured terrorists or secondly from an informer within the group. An intelligence coup greatly enhances the prospect of stopping terrorist operations once the larger group has been compromised. (C) Prevention of terrorism is a highly controversial policy designed to reduce the appeal of terrorism within the population through reform packages. The method is characterized by diplomatic exchanges. However, as a preventative method it has been questioned and it is argued to resemble concessionary politics. (D) Prevention is conceived as securing the physical integrity of targets and key political installations, particularly weapons installations, national buildings, national or cultural symbols, or defence deployments. Protecting possible targets of the state enhances the wellbeing of more vulnerable targets. Terrorists may move to more convenient territory to target their objectives which make it more difficult to control. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nIn what ways can a distinction be made between limited force and full-scale force?\n(A) The distinction between limited force and full-scale force is the second process of coercive diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy only fails if the coercer fails to achieve its defined goals and fails to defeat its adversary in the second stage. (B) Generally the distinction between brute and limited force is negligible. Resort to air or sea power constitutes an equal coercive capacity to a conventional ground offensive. Military action always results from a failure of negotiations and from a shift from the diplomatic to the military sphere. (C) The distinction between limited force and brute force is important because the amount of force that is used to attain the coercer's interests defines the type of outcome that is achieved. If a positive policy outcome is achieved, then we can say that limited force has been employed. (D) The distinction between limited force and full-scale war is crucial because resort to brute force means that diplomacy has failed. The distinction is not based on the amount of force or the type, but on the purpose that the use of force seeks to accomplish and the element of choice left to the adversary. In essence, limited force is a bargaining tool. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhat are the challenges for the future of security studies?\n(A) The most obvious issue of joint concern during the 2000s was terror and order, although fast- rising concerns over environmental/climate security could easily provide another big linking issue. (B) The fate of security studies depends on its ability to prevail in the general debates in the discipline of IR. It is very unlikely that the internal dynamics of the theory debate will be decided by a general prevalence of one of the current debates. (C) Both the US and European analysts will be working on the role and nature of technology, globalization, risk society and the international economic order. This picture shows that there will be a lot of points of contact between the currently disconnected fields of theory. (D) All of these options. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhich of the following is the odd one out?\n(A) Institutional constraints and resource constraints. (B) Information and time horizon. (C) Goals. (D) Vectors of economic incentives. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(D)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWithin Critical Security Studies, what is the referent object of security?\n(A) There is no specific referent point. (B) The state and state apparatus. (C) The environment. (D) The people and their collectives. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(A)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
{"question": "The following are multiple choice questions (with answers) about security studies.\n\nQ: What are the frameworks of analysis within which terrorism has been considered (as of 2020)?\n(A) Competition between larger nations has resulted in some countries actively supporting terrorist groups to undermine the strength of rival states. Terrorist networks are extended patronage clubs maintained and paid for by their donor states and are conceptualised as being like state actors, to be dealt with using military force. (B) Globalization has enabled the internationalization of terrorist activities by opening up their operational space, although coordination is still managed from a geographical base. This suggests that terrorist groups are nationally structured which means that terrorism cannot be considered in terms of a war to be defeated militarily without having serious implications on the indigenous population. (C) Terrorism can be viewed as a problem to be resolved by military means (war on terrorism), by normal police techniques (terrorism as crime), or as a medical problem with underlying causes and symptoms (terrorism as disease). (D) Terrorism is viewed as a criminal problem. The criminalization of terrorism has two important implications. Firstly, it suggests that terrorism can be eradicated - terrorists can be caught and brought to trial by normal judicial proceedings thereby removing the threat from society - and secondly, it suggests that preventative crime techniques are applicable to prevent its development.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. (A) is wrong because it is not competition between larger nations that causes terrorism. \n(B) is wrong because globalization is not the cause of terrorism.\n(C) is correct because the US undertook the war on terrorism. \n(D) is wrong because preventative crime techniques will likely not end terrorism. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: Which of the following is the best lens through which to investigate the role of child soldiers?\n(A) Child soldiers are victims of combat that need re-education and rehabilitation. (B) Children and their mothers are not active subjects in warfare and are best considered as subjects in the private sphere. (C) Children are most often innocent bystanders in war and are best used as signifiers of peace. (D) Children have political subjecthood that is missed when they are considered as passive victims of warfare.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Child soliders as a political topic can be missed when they are considered passive victims of warfare. The answer is (D).\n\nQ: How can we best describe the relationship between the state-centric approach and the concept of human security?\n(A) There are such wide divisions within the human security framework regarding the nature of threats and referent objects that no widely applicable comparisons between state-centric approaches and human security can be drawn. (B) By adopting the framework of human security, the limitations of the realist state-centric approach become evident. Whilst human security defines the referent object as the person or population, state-centric approaches prioritise the security of the state, de-prioritizing the pursuit of human security. (C) The state-centric approach to security is a faction of human security, usually defined within the broad school of human security. By being state-centric this approach prioritises the individual as the referent object in security studies. (D) Both the state-centric and human-centric approaches to security are mutually exclusive and offer a sufficient analytic framework with which to understand the international security system. It is therefore the role of security analysts to determine which of these substantial concepts is correct, and which should be discarded.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Human security focuses on a person or population whereas state-centric approaches focus on the state while deprioritizing human security. The answer is (B).\n\nQ: In order to become securitized, a threat must be presented in which of these ways?\n(A) As an existential threat that requires immediate and extraordinary action, posing a threat to the survival of the state or to societal security. (B) As requiring immediate and extraordinary action by the state, threatening the survival of a referent object and therefore warranting the use of measures not normally employed in the political realm. (C) As an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object, so serious that it legitimises the employment of extraordinary action in response. (D) As an urgent threat to the survival of the audience that requires extraordinary or emergency measures.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. To be securitized, a threat must be an urgent threat to the survival of the referent object. The answer is (C).\n\nQ: What distinguishes coercive diplomacy from military force?\n(A) Compellence is another term for coercive diplomacy, but covering a narrower set of criteria; compellence covers those threats aimed at initiating adversary action. A threat to coerce a state to give up part of its territory would count as coercive diplomacy, as long as that threat proactively initiates action before reactive diplomacy is taken. (B) Coercive diplomacy constitutes the threats of limited force to induce adversary's incentive to comply with the coercer's demands. It is an influence strategy that is intended to obtain compliance: the use of force to defeat an opponent first does not count. It leaves an element of choice with the target to comply, or to continue. (C) Military force, or the threat of military force, utilises fear to achieve strategic objectives. Coercive diplomacy is differentiated from this approach, because it does not use fear as a tool for coercing an adversary. (D) Coercive diplomacy is employed to use force but to limit its effects on the international community. Coercive diplomacy is an aggressive strategy that is intended to obtain compliance through defeat. It does not leave an element of choice with the target, the target either being forced to comply or engage in conflict. It seeks to control by imposing compliance by removing any opportunity for negotiation or concession.\nA: Let's think step by step. We refer to Wikipedia articles on security studies for help. Coercive diplomacy uses the threat of force to induce the opponent to comply with demands. The answer is (B).\n\nWhy is coercive diplomacy hard? What are the inherent difficulties?\n(A) Perpetual, psychological and emotional factors are precluded from the adversary's calculations. In no-win situations therefore the adversary might calculate that temporary compliance is the best strategic option to buy time. (B) Coercive diplomacy leaves too much room for compromise. Actors engaging in such behaviour are unlikely to perceive their vital interests as threatened and regard issues as zero-sum because they are aware that force will be used. As a consequence coercive diplomacy can lead to lengthy resolution discussions. (C) The success ultimately rests on perceptual, psychological and emotional factors, giving rise to the risk that misperception or miscalculation will defeat even a well-executed strategy that otherwise meets all the requirements for success. (D) The political scope for offering inducements can become unlimited. The problem becomes particularly underlined when the risk of terrorism, WMD or equal military capability comes into play. Inducements can appear to look like concessionary politics and blur the line of what constitutes a success defined as the fear of inescapable escalation. \nA: Let's think step by step.", "label": "(C)", "options": ["(A)", "(B)", "(C)", "(D)"]}
